October 11, 2015 5:01 pm
The aftermath of an airstrike in support of Kurds fighting Islamic State militants in Kobani, Syria
A month earlier, his government adopted a different approach, justifying the extrajudicial killing by drone of two British nationals in Syria, both said to be recruits of the jihadi militants of Isis, supposedly on the basis of UK self-defence. This unprecedented and implausible claim was backed only by assertion, not evidence. A few days later it emerged that the argument was shaky enough to cause the UK to offer the UN secretary-general another reason: we killed two of our own nationals for the collective self-defence of Iraq.
Policy, law and action are interconnected. As Lord Falconer, shadow justice secretary, reminds us, any justification for air strikes on Syria requires both a “military and legal basis”. The coupling of those elements is premised on the existence of a clear, coherent strategy on Syria, one that addresses vital questions: what are we aiming for, how do we get there and how do we depart?
The timeline should be seen in terms of years, not tomorrow’s headlines. Mr Cameron needs to share his long-term strategy for addressing the quagmire in Syria, and then explain how dropping British bombs on the country — rather than redoubling efforts in Iraq, for example to secure Mosul, which residents say is surrounded by Isis — will help to achieve it. Without such a strategy it is pointless conjuring up yet more half-baked legal arguments to justify a use of force that purportedly allows the UK to blindly follow others. His silence, and changes of justification, are indicative of a black hole in UK foreign policy.
The UN Security Council has in effect ceased to function on the Syrian question, so there will be no authorisation of British bombing from that quarter. Unlike the Russians, who claim that the lawful government of Syria has invited them in — and unlike Iraq, which asked for UK support — in Syria, there is no entity from which Mr Cameron can request a permission slip. So he is left to argue “self-defence” under Article 51 of the UN charter, which allows force in two circumstances.
First, an armed attack on the UK must have occurred or be imminent — but we have been given no evidence, only unsubstantiated claims about threats to national security. Alternatively, we might use force in the “collective self-defence” of Iraq — but that too must be backed up by evidence and an assessment as to military utility. Again, we have seen nothing.
Catastrophic engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya made bad situations worse. Mr Cameron supported all three wars, and now feels able to tell the public that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to go because he “helped to create” Isis and is now their “recruiting sergeant”, as though his own actions are unconnected to the events that brought Isis into being — Saddam Hussein’s former generals are said to be driving much of the Isis strategy. The intervention in Iraq was ill conceived, unlawful and unprepared: the case for bombing Syria stands on no firmer ground.
Rather than spend more time concocting insubstantial legal justifications for dropping bombs, Mr Cameron should develop a proper policy for addressing the region’s spreading conflicts. Like it or not, he is going to have to engage with all the most important actors in the complex Syrian conflict, including Russia and Iran, Turkey and the Kurds, Saudi Arabia and its allies.
He will also have to come to terms with the fact that Mr Assad is likely to play a role in finding that longer-term settlement. Crucial though this is, Mr Cameron tells us that work has not yet begun. “We haven’t even started discussions,” he said last week. “We need to start discussions about how transition is brought about.” It is a startling admission, one that suggests we are sleepwalking towards a greater disaster.
The writer, a queen’s counsel, is professor of law at University College London