Tuesday, 1 December 2015

The Humanitarian Argument for Intervention in Syria

Note from Harry - Today's blog post is written by my good friend Ben Knight. Ben is a young Conservative currently studying for his A-levels in Economics, History and English Literature, hoping to stand as a candidate for the party some day in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------

As a person of the ginger-haired variety and a young Conservative, I am not unused to finding myself in the minority. It was therefore no great surprise to me when, two years ago, I found little support in speaking in favour of British airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad. The received wisdom of the trundling pacifists and the flower power warriors prevailed: war is always wrong, bombs are always bad and there is always another way.

Those voices now are somewhat quieter, for the agenda has changed. Few people are impassioned by the thought of a bland, besuited dictator using chemical weapons and gas bombs against people thousands of miles away, about whom we know very little. The western world is far more readily summoned to the cusp of war by the thought of straggly-haired, bearded Jihadists roaming the streets of Paris, shooting people who look like us and upon whose roads we have ourselves driven.

My attitude has never been that British foreign policy should be motivated purely by self-interest, nor that self defence should be the compelling argument today in favour of intervening in Syria. Why, ISIL certainly poses a serious threat to our country - one that we cannot simply bow down to, and one which should absolutely be confronted. But it is not merely the colours of the Union Jack that draw me to the prospect of an armed intervention in the Levant region. Neither, despite what some on the left might prefer to claim, is it some Churchillian lust for war and conquest. No; I believe in war that is just. I believe in war against an enemy with whom no negotiation can be contemplated. I believe in war for the sake of the millions of people who find themselves under the steel fist of ISIL's savage ideology. People who cannot send their girls to school, who cannot pray except as they are told to, who cannot speak for fear of being heard and who cannot live without the looming shadow of torture or death. The eradication of ISIL by force is not an argument about whether British shores are left better or worse, and it is not an argument about whether we are right to take or responsible for taking action in this way. It is an argument simply about humanity, a question of whether we can bear to live in a world populated by terrorists and ideologues of the kind that ISIL represents.

For as Hitler did not propose or have the means to invade Britain in 1939, ISIL does not propose or have the means to subjugate our people in 2015. They do, however, as the Nazis did, propose to subjugate fellow human beings. They make speak a foreign language, eat foods we find peculiar and adopt customs which we might never comprehend - but they are people. Any person who makes himself a friend of liberty, who believes in democracy and in freedom of thought, religion, speech: any such person is a friend of me. Britain, a free and safe country, has a responsibility to assist others who do not possess such freedoms.

Our goal must be to eradicate the threat posed by ISIL and to secure the Iraq/Syria region. In the long term, though his contribution in pressing forwards with a new and democratic Syria may be necessary, Bashar al-Assad too must go. The Syrian people must be given a state which is democratic, secular and safe. That achievement will represent an enormous benefit to our fellow humankind, and indeed to ourselves. For our security depends increasingly upon the security of the globalised world. Will airstrikes achieve this aim? Realistically, not alone. The argument about boots on the ground is perhaps one for another day. But to suggest that the best thing is to do nothing? To believe that war is always wrong? To state that ISIL is not worth fighting? No, no, no. War that is just can be right. War that is necessary can be good. And as the air above our heads would today be bloated with the stench of Jewish corpses had Britain stood aside at the opening of the Second World War, I fear that the Middle East and the world may descend into a living hell if Britain stands aside today.

No comments:

Post a Comment