Open letter to Robert Goodwill, MP: Opposition to Military Involvement in Syria's Civil War.
Dear Mr Goodwill,
I'm writing to put on record my opposition to our military involvement in the civil war in Syria, to ask how you intend to vote, and to explain my opinion.
1. I guess the first thing to say is that public opinion is strongly against any military involvement. The latest BBC 'talking point' on the subject, yesterday, makes that very clear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23851292
2. In spite of this, David Cameron seems to have been struck by that contagion which seems to afflict incumbents of his office, causing them to intervene with British lives and financial support in the foreign affairs of faraway states, whose circumstances we do not understand, and in ways which will have no benefit to British interests.
3. An aphorism which George Bush once tried to repeat: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The reason it's all but impossible to get UN agreement for intervention these days is because countries have learned from bitter experience that their agreements for limited intervention 'A', are always used as false justifications for broad actions 'B', 'C' and 'D'. They will not be fooled again.
4. David Cameron is using the same clear tactic in the vote proposed for tomorrow: the wording will be for some nebulous and vague response, which will later be used as a justification for military action.
5. It is not just that this is not our war. The same mistakes are made now which have been made in every single Middle-East intervention: it is not clear that the opposition to a repugnant government will not be even worse. Look what we have done to Iraq. Look at the Taliban evil we have unleashed back on Afghanis. Look at the replacement Egypt got after ousting Mubarak. Look at post-Gadaffi Libya. All these countries have lurched towards extremist Islamic fundamentalism, sharia law, female oppression, and everything else involved in Islamic rule. There is never any substantive plan for after a military intervention; and the consequences are always terrible. More bloodshed, not less. More injustice, not less. Further from Western interests, not closer to them.
6. There is every reason to suppose that the opposition to Assad's government would be every bit as callous or worse than Assad himself. We already see that in the news reports. Backing an opposition to Assad is not the same as backing the oppressed civilians.
7. There is always an ulterior motive for the UK and USA attacking a sovereign state, and it is never the benefit of that country's people, and it never results in a benefit for the majority of that country's people, nor a benefit to ours! If we back military intervention in Syria on this occasion, it will be to avoid US President Obama losing face for saying laying down red lines which have been crossed.
Please vote 'no' tomorrow. Whatever the question is, unless it's a completely water-tight and specific measure (and it will certainly be nothing but a blank cheque) it would be utterly foolish to give the government authority to act. There is no British interest here... the whole country is shouting that message: not in our name.
We have no argument that what Assad's government has done to his people is utterly bad, repugnant, evil. But Syria is surrounded by Arab countries who know the situation far better than us. We have no obligation to act, no right to act, no plan which will make any improvement, and the virtual inevitability of bringing about a far worse outcome by armed intervention of any kind.
If there is no UN agreement, it's not good enough to say that particular countries in the UN are unreasonable. Those countries reflect the UK's electorate far better than our own leadership.
Yours sincerely,
- Andi Ye
I'm writing to put on record my opposition to our military involvement in the civil war in Syria, to ask how you intend to vote, and to explain my opinion.
1. I guess the first thing to say is that public opinion is strongly against any military involvement. The latest BBC 'talking point' on the subject, yesterday, makes that very clear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23851292
2. In spite of this, David Cameron seems to have been struck by that contagion which seems to afflict incumbents of his office, causing them to intervene with British lives and financial support in the foreign affairs of faraway states, whose circumstances we do not understand, and in ways which will have no benefit to British interests.
3. An aphorism which George Bush once tried to repeat: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The reason it's all but impossible to get UN agreement for intervention these days is because countries have learned from bitter experience that their agreements for limited intervention 'A', are always used as false justifications for broad actions 'B', 'C' and 'D'. They will not be fooled again.
4. David Cameron is using the same clear tactic in the vote proposed for tomorrow: the wording will be for some nebulous and vague response, which will later be used as a justification for military action.
5. It is not just that this is not our war. The same mistakes are made now which have been made in every single Middle-East intervention: it is not clear that the opposition to a repugnant government will not be even worse. Look what we have done to Iraq. Look at the Taliban evil we have unleashed back on Afghanis. Look at the replacement Egypt got after ousting Mubarak. Look at post-Gadaffi Libya. All these countries have lurched towards extremist Islamic fundamentalism, sharia law, female oppression, and everything else involved in Islamic rule. There is never any substantive plan for after a military intervention; and the consequences are always terrible. More bloodshed, not less. More injustice, not less. Further from Western interests, not closer to them.
6. There is every reason to suppose that the opposition to Assad's government would be every bit as callous or worse than Assad himself. We already see that in the news reports. Backing an opposition to Assad is not the same as backing the oppressed civilians.
7. There is always an ulterior motive for the UK and USA attacking a sovereign state, and it is never the benefit of that country's people, and it never results in a benefit for the majority of that country's people, nor a benefit to ours! If we back military intervention in Syria on this occasion, it will be to avoid US President Obama losing face for saying laying down red lines which have been crossed.
Please vote 'no' tomorrow. Whatever the question is, unless it's a completely water-tight and specific measure (and it will certainly be nothing but a blank cheque) it would be utterly foolish to give the government authority to act. There is no British interest here... the whole country is shouting that message: not in our name.
We have no argument that what Assad's government has done to his people is utterly bad, repugnant, evil. But Syria is surrounded by Arab countries who know the situation far better than us. We have no obligation to act, no right to act, no plan which will make any improvement, and the virtual inevitability of bringing about a far worse outcome by armed intervention of any kind.
If there is no UN agreement, it's not good enough to say that particular countries in the UN are unreasonable. Those countries reflect the UK's electorate far better than our own leadership.
Yours sincerely,
- Andi Ye
posted by Tsuchan at 10:19 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home