The return to Parliament was dominated by the decision to join US and French allies in a targeted strike to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capabilities.
This action was prompted by an attack on Saturday 7th April where up to 75 people, including young children, were killed in an horrific attack in Douma, with as many as 500 further casualties. The pictures of small children and their parents who had been gassed whilst sheltering in basements has sickened everybody across the world. The horror of chemical attacks and the suffering they cause is not lost on any decent person. We know that these attacks are a stain on humanity which cannot be tolerated or normalised.
The Saturday before we returned to Parliament the Prime Minister took a decision to join allies and strike chemical weapons targets. The Prime Minister came to the Chamber to explain why she took this action and answered questions for three and a half hours. We then had two three-hour debates which the Prime Minister was present for and responded.
The Prime Minister set out the case very clearly, and I for one was grateful for the detail as I do not have a military background, have never been to Syria and the little knowledge I have read comes from what I have read in the papers, online and in reports. As backbench Members of Parliament we do not have access to the military intelligence required to weigh up the options and fully inform a decision. We are, in general, as well informed as those who also read information largely available in the public domain.
Firstly, the Prime Minister set out why intelligence indicates that it was the Syrian regime who carried out the attack. This was based on the fact that barrel bombs delivered by helicopters were used to carry out the chemical attack and there were sightings of Regime helicopters operating over Douma on the evening of the 7th April. The intelligence services concluded that no other group could have carried out this attack and the opposition groups in Syria do not operate barrel bombs or helicopters.
Some members of the Opposition were pressing for diplomatic channels only to be used unless action was backed by the UN Security Council. The problem with this approach seems obvious, as on each occasion that there have been signs of chemical weapons being used, Russia has blocked any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account. Already there have been six such vetoes since the start of 2017. Just last week, Russia blocked a UN resolution that would have established an independent investigation to determine responsibility for the latest attack. It seems pretty clear to me that this tactic will continue to render the UN Security Council unable to take the lead to establish accountability and take appropriate action.
The legal case for deciding to act and not recall Parliament was laid out with examples of Governments of all colours taking military action, on an exceptional basis, where necessary and proportionate to avert a humanitarian catastrophe under international law.
Any decision to take military action is incredibly difficult. But what is also clear is that a decision to not take action can often have far reaching consequences, sometimes these are worse. It was clear from the debate that there was cross party support by a clear majority of MPs for the action taken by the Prime Minister.