It seemed for a brief moment that William Hague was finally going to get his wish of military action towards Syria on Wednesday.
After reports that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels surfaced at the beginning of the week, it seemed like the foreign secretary’s months of war mongering were finally going to pay off for him. Condemned first by US President Barack Obama, it seemed like Britain was going to mimic its actions under Tony Blair in 2003 as it followed US forces into Iraq because of dodgy claims that Saddam Husain was harbouring weapons of mass destruction – a façade that all of Britain remembers too well.
This time, David Cameron was keen to avoid the public and media onslaught that resulted in the downfall of Tony Blair, by putting the decision to send troops in the warring country to a vote in the House of Commons. While Cameron didn’t need the backing of Labour, it would have been difficult for him to justify going into Syria without it. The ‘no’ vote by Labour in the House of Commons not only showed there is some political clout to Ed Miliband (after all, he managed to persuade his party to vote against the very thing it did under Blair in 2003); it also went some way into portraying the party to be hypocritical and poses a number of questions –if Labour was prepared to go to war with Iraq over apparent weapons of mass destruction, what is so different about Syria? And if Ed Miliband had been in David Cameron’s position, would he also have made movements towards military action? Is this merely good politics from Ed Miliband, or is he genuinely concerned about the opinion of the British public?
Cameron and Hague may still hold hopes to have some sort of bearing on the events in Syria, but it cannot now be done through direct military involvement. While France and Australia are prepared to stick their necks out and say they are prepared for military involvement against the Assad regime, it is unlikely they will have the backing from the UN as Russia will almost definitely veto any attempt of involvement by the West to maintain its sphere of influence in and around the gulf; China also is unlikely to agree to affirmative action within the Syrian state.
The fact that the US, who are normally keen and raring to go as quickly as possible to maintain its position as ‘The World’s Policeman’ (whether or not President Obama dislikes international confrontation) but is still humming and haring over what exactly to do about a regime which Obama claims is 100 per cent definitely using chemical weapons against its own people clarifies just how much of a difficult situation the leaders of the world face. While Turkey earlier today stated it would only support foreign intervention in Syria if it would bring an end to the Assad regime, there is not one leader from the western hemisphere who wants to aid nor work with terrorists, and unfortunately that is exactly what the revolution is headed by –al-Qaeda. Never mind public attitude in Britain, but could American society really stand by and let its president aid the very organisation that broke so many American hearts in September 2001?
Thought must then be cast to what would happen as a result of this type of intervention. Although it is still possible that the rebels will oust Assad and take control of Syria, the most disturbing thing that could happen as a result of this conflict is that al-Qaeda would have its very own state to operate from, giving it political power and further military might, as well as a haven, for all its members. Syria could become the centre for the jihad movement against the west, and though it is perhaps far too early to use the term ‘terrorist state’, that is something Syria could potentially become. If this were to happen, the conflict with Afghanistan over the last 10 years could be seen as a mere training session if al-Qaeda was able to get its hands on Syria, and is this potential crisis something the West really wants to held work towards?