Should we be taking military action in Syria?

 

 

There is a division across the world involving the crisis in Syria, with differing views and conflicting arguments about how the world should react to the latest developments that chemical weapons have been used against the civilian population.

In Britain, parliament appears divided, with Ed Miliband – Labour Leader – not ruling out the idea of another vote to pass the judgement of taking military action against Syria, despite his former position of voting down any plans for the British to become involved in the middle-east’s affairs earlier this week. He made his current position clear when he announced, ‘dictators and regimes across the globe whose primary purpose is self-preservation and who act with internal and external aggression will be watching…”, suggesting his most recent position has differed from his original stance of saying no to any British involvement in reprisals. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is in favour of taking military action against Syria due to the devastating effect on the Syrian civilians, which he feels he cannot ignore. Altogether, since Mr Cameron failed to convince parliament to take action, it is likely that the British will not be partaking in military action against Syria, especially since Ed Miliband has been reported to have cautioned David Cameron 'against any idea of a re-run of a Syria vote', (Daily Mail). This is in spite of the Labour party also being divided in opinion of what action to take.

                The absence of action in the British government is noticeably uncommon, as is the early vote, because American President Barack Obama has made it clear that he is in favour of, “…a punishment for the chemical weapons attack and a deterrent against future incidents…” (Guardian). As the British are the American’s closest allies, Britain taking and deciding on a vote before consulting America is most unusual. President Obama is taking his views to Congress, even though he has the power and willingness to take military action without the support of Congress. Congress is due to debate President Obama’s proposition on 9th September when the return from Summer recess.

                Meanwhile, the French government are pushing for military action, despite 64% of the French population (according to a recent poll) being opposed to such action. The French had no vote due to their constitution not requiring one. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has published an intelligence dossier showing the forces of the president of Syria – Bashar al-Assad – carrying out a “massive and co-ordinated” chemical attack that is believed to have wiped out hundreds of people.

                As for Russia and China, Syria’s closest allies, both countries solely support the Syrian government, stating that any action desired should be taken to the United Nations for discussion. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin said that, “…claims that proof exists but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody are below criticism...” (CNN). China, on the other hand, are less stern than Moscow, but still fully against America taking military action in Syria. The Chinese Media especially are warning President Obama to, “think twice before acting…” lest he “further accelerates the decline of America,” (Vancouver Sun).

                One might say that these events appear to mirror those of World War II, when Hitler abused the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, and Britain, France, and America didn’t take action until too late, thus spurring Hitler on to do worse things. Keeping in mind that Bashar al-Assad has already bombed his own people, further bombings of civilians will not bring his dictatorship to a halt. It would be more of a damage to his pride than his plans. Ergo, a more effective and efficient plan needs to be made and acted upon, because every day that nothing happens, al-Assad is becoming braver and the civilian population of Syria continue to suffer. Today, the refugee count flooding out of Syria passed two million. Approximately half of the two million are children, of which three-quarters are under eleven years old. A further 4.2 million Syrians still living in Syria have lost their homes and have been displaced. Sooner rather than later, some sort of action must be taken, whether military or diplomatic.