Syria Vote: One Year On Newsnight

presents a special Newsnight report on the anniversary of the Commons

vote against British military action in Syria. It was a year ago that

Parliament voted not to intervene militarily in Syria. David Cameron

has warned we will be fighting against Islamic State for years. But

how? He has increased the terror threat to the UK to severe. What

were the consequences of that vote? Have Britain and the US lost their

appetite for foreign war? And what has happened since? The movement of

Islamic State into Iraq and the creation of 3 million refugees. It

is clear that the British Parliament does not want to see military

action. I get that. They are Assad loyalists. President Assad himself

has now confirmed on Russian television that he does have

chemical weapons and is prepared to give them out. In a war where the

youngest are not just caught in the crossfire, they are targeted and

even tortured. Militants backed by anti`government tribal fighters

claimed to have taken full control of the western Iraqi city of

Fallujah. We are not going to put boots on the ground. This is their

fight. But we will help them in their fight. After four days of

this, the jihadis are effectively in control of Mosul, Iraq's second

city. Many are from the Yazidi sect, forced from their homes and now

trapped on mountains by the jihadists. Syria's intensifying

refugee crisis has surpassed today a record 3 million refugees. The

killer, who speaks with a British accent, send a direct message to US

President Obama before killing James Foley. ISIS poses a direct threat to

the region. David Cameron would not commit to any further military

involvement in the Middle East but he did so `` described the Islamic

State as a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have ever

known before. We are in the middle of a generational struggle with an

extremist entity that we will be fighting for years if not decades.

We will always take whatever action is necessary to keep the British

people safe at home. One year ago, the Prime Minister took a different

approach after chemical attacks by President Assad on his own people.

Parliament was recalled to approve military action in Syria only to

fail to get the backing of the majority of MPs. How did the

government misjudged the impact of that vote? And what have in fact

been of that decision `` what are the impacts of that decision? This

report contains disturbing images. How do we decide? Who do we stand up

for? One year ago tonight, David Cameron's plan to punish Assad for

using chemical weapons failed. It is clear to me that the British

Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to

see British military action. I get out and the government will act

accordingly. If we did not strike them, what now? With danger is more

complex and more intense. David Cameron became the first prime

minister in many generations to lose a vote on foreign policy. Ministers

were astonished. Consensus was smashed. But their position had been

based on not one but a series of miscalculations, the biggest

perhaps, a misunderstanding of the recent past.

MPs minds were clogged with memories of their vote for Operation Shock

and Awe on evidence that was wrong. We cannot ignore the lessons of the

calamitous Iraq. If we do not take action, and it probably means

military action, then the credibility of the international

community will be greatly damaged. We all know how easy it is to get

into military action and how difficult it is to get out. The

legacy of going to war in Iraq on a false premise cast a long shadow.

Some of us in Parliament are in no mood or smoke and mirrors when it

comes to these things. There was not doubt about Assad's brutality. By

chance, just as MPs voted, these images of an attack with chemical

weapons were shown for the first time. But the question was how to

punish the crossing of the West's Red Line? The government and

Washington want to side with the rebels. Some of these rebels

included ISIS. Some of them included groups linked to Al`Qaeda. The idea

of intervening on their behalf was utter madness. Even on the morning

of the vote, one minister at the Cabinet table suggested they would

be no problem with the debate. But party managers and others were

increasingly aware. I had not had enough time to get the votes. The

first time Parliament or the party assembled as a group was just before

the debate started, so the party whips were actually hampered from

the usual operations of moving around the lobbies, bringing

colleagues and speaking to individuals personally, and so

again, it comes back to this shortage of time to actually marshal

the party as a cohesive group. David Cameron had banked on Ed Miliband's

support, however, and given private concessions. But Julia Schoch,

Labour decided instead on their own, more cautious motion. This was an

important and significant moment. Labour wanted to demonstrate its

knees and it also wanted to show that if push came to shove, it was

not going to bowl at making a difficult decision `` demonstrate

its unease. On paper, Labour's position was not so different to

that of the government's. But in practice, it killed off David

Cameron's plan. By the time he entered the Commons, a member of his

team had in his pocket a speech to acknowledge defeat. Nothing had been

written in the case of a victory. It was Ed Miliband's manoeuvres that

something vote. The government saw it as treachery. The eyes to

rewrite... The nose to the left. Ed Miliband's move did not force David

Cameron to be this explicit. We have to listen to Parliament. Parliament

spoke. Parliament, I think, made a very clear view, which is that it

does not want British military action, so we will proceed on that

basis. He says the threat from the Middle East now is deeper, stronger,

it is harder to act. It did limit the government's power but that is

not necessarily a bad thing. This is a parliamentary democracy. That is a

good thing, given our past errors over the last decade. The fact that

the UK backed off and the US then followed them just illustrated to

these militia groups that, hang on, the West is hesitating here, here is

a real opportunity. And they got into it. This defeat did more than

prevent the UK's action. Both sides agree that it gave Parliament

strength but reduced the UK's power. One year on, with threats

more complex and more dangerous, any leader must work harder for

permission to intervene or take a bigger and frankly unlikely gamble:

Act now and ask later. The ironic inheritance of the vote was

reticence. When one year on, risks to our safety and the Middle East's

safety only grows. Thank you for joining us. Lord Ashdown, first of

all, at the time of that last vote, you said that you are ashamed of

Parliament. Do you still think it was a bad decision? Yes,

undoubtedly. For the very first time in my memory, Britain refused to

stand up for international rules. It was not about intervening in Iraq.

To have provided weapons for the rebels in Iraq would not have been a

wise ring because you would not have known into whose hands those weapons

would have gone, and subsequent events have shown that. But when

Assad crossed a Red Line, broke international law that had been in

existence since 1925, that had restrained Hitler and had restrained

Stalin, and the British Parliament decided to do nothing to stand up

for international law, I think that was a shameful moment. I think what

has happened subsequently, the American taking action together with

France away from Britain forced Assad to come to the table and

negotiate on the issue of chemical weapons. But elsewhere in the Middle

East, the failure to act has convinced people that no matter what

the nature of the transgression, we will not act. Yes, it was a bad

move, and on wise move, and for the UK, a shameful one. There you are,

Lord West. This shameful vote has allowed the rise of Islamic State.

I'm delighted that 12 months ago we did not start bombing Syria with no

clear aim of what the endgame was, no clear aim of where we were going.

In terms of what ifs we could have an entire Syria controlled by ISIS

if we had been doing that. We do not know how it would have gone. I think

it was absolutely right that we did not charge into bombing them without

any clear view of what our aim is. And far from being shameful, I think

it was absolutely right. What I did not like was the final motion that

was to dust in Parliament. It was watered down so much. Instead of a

yes or no, it became much more fuzzy. Liam Fox, you argued very

strongly for intervening. Do you think, as a country, we are

diminished? I think that our influence has been diminished and I

think people will wonder what our word is worth. I think Lord Ashdown

is 100% correct. It was not about intervening in the civil war in

Syria, it was about a response to a breach of international law, a clear

and singular breach with regards the use of chemical weapons. What we

were asking for was a limited response that would send a clear

signal that the use could not be tolerated again. The fact that we

did not send that signal sent a message to people who had Commons in

the region that they could use them with impunity. That is the shameful

moment. `` the people who had chemical weapons in the region. What

about intervening with Iraq? I don't think that is entirely true because

I think there was an understanding within the government that the

Labour Party would give support until the end of the day. I think

that was a dreadful mistake by Ed Miliband. Should there be in

military intervention now and would it be impossible without

parliamentary approval? I think that there should be intervention to deal

with ISIS. What kind of action? Is ISIS is the threat we believe it to

be, we have to stop it. We have to stop the sale of oil on the black

market from which it derives its money. We need to disrupt the

command and control and supply lines of ISIS, and that will require air

strikes. British airstrikes? As well as those from the US. It is also

important that the West provides close air cover for any ground

offensive counter`attack by the Iraqis or the Kurds. Paddy Ashdown,

Liam Fox says very clearly that if asked, we should be militarily

involved in airstrikes. Do you think it is possible to do this without

Parliament's say`so? One will every single possibility of military

intervention be run past Westminster? If we are going to

engage British military forces and put them in harm's way, it is proper

that Parliament be consulted. I profoundly disagree with Liam Fox,

by the way. We have to get away from this idea which says that in

response to everything in the Middle East, our answer is bombs and

rockets. There is a useful limited forms of air support to protect, for

instance, the Kurdish state. There is also a use for such military

action as would be consistent with an integrated policy. In my view,

what is happening in the Middle East now is a very powerful, terrible but

probably reasonably temporary convulsion but it will change the

borders of the Middle East and what we need is an integrated policy of

diplomacy with Turkey, for example, with Iran, to put pressure on Saudi

Arabia to stop supporting the jihadis. And that is probably as

important if not more so than military action. But it is the

co`ordination of those ritual have the effect.

Is the United States say they would like Britain to share the burden of

limited involvement to reduce the military capability of ISIS and give

forces a chance to walk. That network. If we went to a Nato summit

and did not support the Americans but the manned that the rest of Nato

pulls its weight, it would be bought for Britain to have that position.

Should there be a clearly defined, limited strike after the Nato

meeting, if we are asked, we should go ahead with strikes. Is it

possible to have a limited, clearly defined mission in the Middle East?

We need a clear strategy and endgame of where we want to go and we have

to employ what we have at our disposal in terms of diplomatic,

leaning on those within the region, stopping money flows from Qatar and

Saudi Arabia, more pressure on prevent mechanisms in terms of

radicalisation. This needs to be better co`ordinated. There is a

change about thinking it is easy, let's fire some missiles and drop

bombs, it will solve the problem. It doesn't solve the problem.

Sometimes, you do have to use force. I have been involved in using force.

It has got to be clearly thought out and you mustn't do it in a haphazard

way. I think the attack on Syria one year ago would have been haphazard.

You can't wrap on the knuckles. It does have to be proportionate. It

has to be limited. It has to be part of a wider strategy. It has to be

diplomatic, financial, political, but if we require a military element

to complete the strategy, we should not be an unwilling to do it. Thank

you all very much indeed. So, what are the guiding principles of the

policy on intervention in foreign conflicts if there are any? 15 years

since Cossiga, then Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, then Iraq. `` Kosovo.

Was last year a turning point in the rest of the world was that here is

our editor, Mark Urban. `` rest of the world?

Historians and think tanks have been obsessed at the UK's global status.

50 years ago, an American politician said Britain had found an empire but

not found a role. Actually, Britain has had a well`defined role over the

past half`century. That is acting as America's deputy in upholding

international security. In the past, the past year, that has become

highly uncertain as the British government has stepped back from

foreign wars. I was quite surprised at how much the rest of the world

took notice of what happened in Parliament that day because in the

Gulf and even in east Asia and Japan, it was said, is Britain's

serious about defence? Are you guys withdrawing from your space in world

affairs. What seemed at the time to be a domestic blip, a serious one,

in our political process, was perceived by the rest of the world

as a tipping point in Britain's decline as a world power. A few

weeks back, a senior special forces officer I met told me that the SAS

weren't operating in Iraq because of the parliamentary vote. If they had

got into combat, it might be deemed illegal. What would they be doing

once the commitment in Afghanistan had wound down? More training

missions, he suggested and Britain would rely more on the soft power of

the international development department. The forces, intelligence

agencies and Foreign Office have geared themselves to the

government's view that absent a 9/11 scale event, Britain has lost its

will to confront enemies overseas. It would be realistic of me to say

that I would not expect, except in extreme circumstances, I would not

expect to see a manifestation of great appetite for plunging into

another long period of engagement anytime soon. So, the government has

rushed for the door in Afghanistan, drawing down as quickly as possible

in my shunning significant commitment to follow on training for

the Afghan forces. We have seen a reduction in British commitment,

evidenced by the British extreme reluctance to get involved with the

commitment to a training, advising and assisting mission in Afghanistan

when the ISAF mission concludes at the end of this year. What we have

seen is countries like Germany and Italy stepping forward to fill the

gap in supporting the Americans which Britain traditionally did. One

year ago, the result of that British vote reverberated across the

Atlantic, feeding doubt into the US Congress, which then declined to

support US strikes on Syria. Britain had gone from being the dependable

partner to a more questionable ally. I think the vote in Parliament

impact of the President because within a couple of days he decided

to seek a vote in Congress which he hadn't planned to do here. That

faded away. It was little more than a ripple in the long`term

relationship with written and I think when the president gets is

strategy together he will hope as I will be British will be by our site

again as they have been so often `` Britain. Can there be a new concept

about when it is right to intervene? Tony Blair might have

gone in with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan but he did also take

unilateral military action in Sierra Leone and he favoured the concept of

what is called humanitarian intervention. It is believed to be

the concept of responsibility to protect in cases where ethnic

lensing or genocide were imminent. `` ethnic cleansing.

Is the Prime Minister, who has marched his troops down the

interventionist deal, now at the mercy of events marking them back up

again? `` Hill. The RAF is flying over Iraq once more but is dropping

aid, not bombs, for the moment anyway. The government insists it

has not been asked yet to join American air strikes. The signs are

that this government doesn't want to take major military action in this

crisis no matter whether that is independently or as resident over

my's junior partner. `` President Obama's. Britainwant a role in the

world it is just uncertain about how it wants to carve it.

Mark Urban to discuss this. I am joined by the former chief of

general staff, prevents, Professor for the armour and professor at the

London School of economics. Are we living in a world in which

Britain is unwilling or unable to exercise our military power? No, I

don't think we are. Your conversation earlier this evening in

the programme quite rightly focused on the debate in Parliament one year

ago. I was one of those who spoke against intervention and bombing at

that stage as Lord West also did. The issue then was an unclear issue

which could potentially have asked bombing in a complex civil war and

the consequences of what we had done weren't clear. We were right to vote

against that. It caused a check on American ambitions and lead the

Russians to get involved `` led. It led to the removal of most Syria and

legal weapons. Once upon a time, America was the World Cup is a

policeman. No longer. We aren't the lieutenant willing to do anything.

`` world's policeman. Until we understand the problems that Iraq at

us, we can't move onto a different kind of world peace? I think what

Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated is that you don't have the knowledge or

ability to create specific political outcomes like looking democracy in

either of those countries. We still have a lot of power and a lot of

national interest. I think that the situation in Iraq and Syria have

deteriorated to the point that we have to be hardheaded right now

about protecting some core interest. I think that you can

define a strategy fairly simply, that we, the United States, Britain

and other Western powers up until this point act as offshore

balances. Our objective should be to prevent any of these bad actors like

ISIS will like the Assad government in Syria from dominating the region

`` or. If you move your gaze to the Russia and Ukraine crisis and

Ukraine to not calling for membership of Nato to come under

that Umbro, `` tonight `` Dumbrell, is that the conflict, where the

danger is that Putin's ambition threatens us all? `` umbrella. I

think that Ukraine is a more serious threat, not only to us but to other

countries that are important to us. Anything going on in the spreading

Sunni `Shia war. Putin is supporting Russians outside Russia, it will be

destabilising in Europe. Nato needs to get serious on the military

alliance. It hasn't for 20 years. I think it is difficult. It is

difficult to defeat the Islamic State through war fighting. I don't

think that's possible. I think it is key... It might not be possible to

create democracy but it is key to have an inclusive political

arrangement. Politics is key to dealing with these things. When you

look at what is happening in Europe, with Putin and what the

threat looks like, does Nato have to step up to the challenge again

western market do we have to stand nose to nose and show our power? I

think it is terribly dangerous to do that but at the same time again we

are talking in geopolitical terms whereas if you look at what is

happening in eastern Ukraine, what was a democracy movement is being

turned into an ethnic conflict with displacement and human rights

violations. We need to shift the discourse from geopolitics to

humanitarian issues. Thank you all very much indeed. I am afraid that

is all we have time for from this Newsnight special.

Hello. We lose the influence of low pressure to be replaced with high

pressure as we head into the