UK minister defends 2013 vote against Syria military action

An image of ousted Syrian President Bashar Assad covers the facade of a provincial government office in Hama. UK politicians are debating whether the West should have acted against Assad in 2013. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 13 December 2024
Follow

UK minister defends 2013 vote against Syria military action

  • Downfall of Bashar Assad reawakens debate over Western inaction
  • Britain’s decision not to intervene derailed Obama’s chemical weapons ‘red line’ response

LONDON: The former leader of the UK’s Labour Party has defended his 2013 decision not to support the government in taking military action against Bashar Assad in Syria.

The British Parliament voted against attacking Syrian government targets after it used chemical weapons against a rebel-held Damascus suburb.

Labour were in opposition at the time and its MPs were directed by Ed Miliband not to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion in favor of striking Assad.

The UK vote derailed the US military’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria — something President Barack Obama had declared a “red line.”

Without the support of its main Western ally, Washington held back. Many observers believe the decision emboldened Assad and opened the way for Russia to enter the conflict in support of his government.

The downfall of Assad last weekend has reawakened the debate over whether the UK should have taken action, with Labour cabinet ministers openly disagreeing over the course taken more than 10 years ago.

On Thursday, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who was not an MP at the time, told a BBC politics TV show that “if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone.”

He added: “The hesitation of this country and the US created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer.”

Miliband, who is now energy secretary, said on Friday that his cabinet colleague was wrong.

Miliband said the decision not to support military strikes against Assad was grounded in the lessons learned from the 2003 Iraq invasion.

“The decision I was confronted with in 2013 was whether we did a bombing of President Assad without any clear plan for British military engagement, where it would lead and what it would mean,” Miliband told Times Radio.

“And I believe then, and I do now, that one of the most important lessons of the Iraq War is we shouldn’t go into military intervention without a clear plan, including an exit strategy.”

Miliband said that when President Donald Trump ordered bombing raids on Syria in 2017 in response to another chemical weapons attack, it did not lead to the downfall of Assad.

“So when people say that somehow if we bombed President Assad in 2013 he would have toppled over, frankly, it’s just wrong,” he said.

The fall of the Assad government after a lightning offensive by opposition militants has further revealed the extent of the suffering in Syria under his rule, leading to soul-searching in capitals around the world.

The Syrian War, which started in 2011 as anti-government protests, killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced more than 13 million.


Zelensky presses EU to tap Russian assets at crunch summit

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Zelensky presses EU to tap Russian assets at crunch summit

  • “Russian assets must be used to defend against Russian aggression and rebuild what was destroyed by Russian attacks. It’s moral. It’s fair. It’s legal,” Zelensky said
  • German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was among those agreeing strongly as he said there was “no better option“

Brussels: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told EU leaders Thursday they had the “moral” and legal right to use frozen Russian assets to fund Kyiv — as pressure grew on key player Belgium to drop its opposition at a summit showdown.
The 27-nation bloc is scrambling to bolster its ally Ukraine, as US President Donald Trump pushes for a deal with President Vladimir Putin to end the fighting.
Officials have insisted leaders’ talks in Brussels will last as long as it takes to hammer out an agreement, saying both Ukraine’s survival — nearly four years into the war — and Europe’s credibility are at stake.
“We will not leave the European summit without a solution for the funding of Ukraine,” European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen said.
The EU’s executive wants to fund a loan to Ukraine by using frozen assets from Russia’s central bank, though it is holding on to a back-up plan for the bloc to raise the money itself.
The EU estimates Ukraine needs an extra 135 billion euros ($159 billion) to stay afloat over the next two years — with the cash crunch set to start in April.
Zelensky said Kyiv needed a decision on its financing by the end of the year and that the move could give it more leverage in talks to end the war.
“Russian assets must be used to defend against Russian aggression and rebuild what was destroyed by Russian attacks. It’s moral. It’s fair. It’s legal,” Zelensky said.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was among those agreeing strongly as he said there was “no better option.”
But Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever — who held talks with Zelensky on the sidelines — seemed unconvinced so far.
“I have not seen a text that could persuade me to give Belgium’s agreement,” he told Belgian lawmakers before the summit kicked off.
The vast bulk of the assets are held by international deposit organization Euroclear in Belgium, and the government fears it could face crippling financial and legal reprisals from Moscow.
EU officials say they have gone out of their way to allay Belgian worries and that multiple layers of protection — including guarantees from other member states — mean the risks are minimal.
“At this stage, the guarantees offered by the Commission remain insufficient,” De Wever said.

- Ukraine’s looming cash crunch -

In a bid to plug Kyiv’s yawning gap, the Commission has proposed tapping 210 billion euros of frozen assets, initially to provide Kyiv 90 billion euros over two years.
The unprecedented scheme would see the funds loaned to the EU, which would then loan them on to Ukraine.
Kyiv would then only pay back the “reparations loan” once the Kremlin compensates it for the damage.
In theory, other EU countries could override Belgium and ram the initiative through with a weighted majority, but that would be a nuclear option that few see as likely for now.
De Wever insisted that the EU should go for its alternative plan of raising money itself — but diplomats said that option had been shelved as it needed unanimity and Hungary was firmly against.
Bubbling close to the surface of the EU’s discussion are the US efforts to forge a deal to end the war.
Zelensky said Ukrainian and US delegations would hold new talks on Friday and Saturday in the United States.
He said he wanted Washington to give more details on the guarantees it could offer to protect Ukraine from another invasion.
“What will the United States of America do if Russia comes again with aggression?” he asked. “What will these security guarantees do? How will they work?“