:00:00. > :00:00.presents a special Newsnight report on the anniversary of the Commons
:00:00. > :00:10.vote against British military action in Syria. It was a year ago that
:00:11. > :00:15.Parliament voted not to intervene militarily in Syria. David Cameron
:00:16. > :00:20.has warned we will be fighting against Islamic State for years. But
:00:21. > :00:26.how? He has increased the terror threat to the UK to severe. What
:00:27. > :00:32.were the consequences of that vote? Have Britain and the US lost their
:00:33. > :00:38.appetite for foreign war? And what has happened since? The movement of
:00:39. > :00:43.Islamic State into Iraq and the creation of 3 million refugees. It
:00:44. > :00:52.is clear that the British Parliament does not want to see military
:00:53. > :00:58.action. I get that. They are Assad loyalists. President Assad himself
:00:59. > :01:00.has now confirmed on Russian television that he does have
:01:01. > :01:06.chemical weapons and is prepared to give them out. In a war where the
:01:07. > :01:12.youngest are not just caught in the crossfire, they are targeted and
:01:13. > :01:15.even tortured. Militants backed by anti`government tribal fighters
:01:16. > :01:20.claimed to have taken full control of the western Iraqi city of
:01:21. > :01:24.Fallujah. We are not going to put boots on the ground. This is their
:01:25. > :01:29.fight. But we will help them in their fight. After four days of
:01:30. > :01:38.this, the jihadis are effectively in control of Mosul, Iraq's second
:01:39. > :01:41.city. Many are from the Yazidi sect, forced from their homes and now
:01:42. > :01:49.trapped on mountains by the jihadists. Syria's intensifying
:01:50. > :01:54.refugee crisis has surpassed today a record 3 million refugees. The
:01:55. > :02:01.killer, who speaks with a British accent, send a direct message to US
:02:02. > :02:09.President Obama before killing James Foley. ISIS poses a direct threat to
:02:10. > :02:12.the region. David Cameron would not commit to any further military
:02:13. > :02:18.involvement in the Middle East but he did so `` described the Islamic
:02:19. > :02:22.State as a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have ever
:02:23. > :02:29.known before. We are in the middle of a generational struggle with an
:02:30. > :02:33.extremist entity that we will be fighting for years if not decades.
:02:34. > :02:38.We will always take whatever action is necessary to keep the British
:02:39. > :02:42.people safe at home. One year ago, the Prime Minister took a different
:02:43. > :02:46.approach after chemical attacks by President Assad on his own people.
:02:47. > :02:50.Parliament was recalled to approve military action in Syria only to
:02:51. > :02:55.fail to get the backing of the majority of MPs. How did the
:02:56. > :03:02.government misjudged the impact of that vote? And what have in fact
:03:03. > :03:06.been of that decision `` what are the impacts of that decision? This
:03:07. > :03:23.report contains disturbing images. How do we decide? Who do we stand up
:03:24. > :03:28.for? One year ago tonight, David Cameron's plan to punish Assad for
:03:29. > :03:30.using chemical weapons failed. It is clear to me that the British
:03:31. > :03:35.Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to
:03:36. > :03:40.see British military action. I get out and the government will act
:03:41. > :03:47.accordingly. If we did not strike them, what now? With danger is more
:03:48. > :03:50.complex and more intense. David Cameron became the first prime
:03:51. > :03:54.minister in many generations to lose a vote on foreign policy. Ministers
:03:55. > :04:00.were astonished. Consensus was smashed. But their position had been
:04:01. > :04:03.based on not one but a series of miscalculations, the biggest
:04:04. > :04:09.perhaps, a misunderstanding of the recent past.
:04:10. > :04:16.MPs minds were clogged with memories of their vote for Operation Shock
:04:17. > :04:22.and Awe on evidence that was wrong. We cannot ignore the lessons of the
:04:23. > :04:26.calamitous Iraq. If we do not take action, and it probably means
:04:27. > :04:32.military action, then the credibility of the international
:04:33. > :04:36.community will be greatly damaged. We all know how easy it is to get
:04:37. > :04:41.into military action and how difficult it is to get out. The
:04:42. > :04:48.legacy of going to war in Iraq on a false premise cast a long shadow.
:04:49. > :04:53.Some of us in Parliament are in no mood or smoke and mirrors when it
:04:54. > :04:58.comes to these things. There was not doubt about Assad's brutality. By
:04:59. > :05:01.chance, just as MPs voted, these images of an attack with chemical
:05:02. > :05:06.weapons were shown for the first time. But the question was how to
:05:07. > :05:11.punish the crossing of the West's Red Line? The government and
:05:12. > :05:14.Washington want to side with the rebels. Some of these rebels
:05:15. > :05:19.included ISIS. Some of them included groups linked to Al`Qaeda. The idea
:05:20. > :05:23.of intervening on their behalf was utter madness. Even on the morning
:05:24. > :05:28.of the vote, one minister at the Cabinet table suggested they would
:05:29. > :05:32.be no problem with the debate. But party managers and others were
:05:33. > :05:38.increasingly aware. I had not had enough time to get the votes. The
:05:39. > :05:42.first time Parliament or the party assembled as a group was just before
:05:43. > :05:46.the debate started, so the party whips were actually hampered from
:05:47. > :05:50.the usual operations of moving around the lobbies, bringing
:05:51. > :05:53.colleagues and speaking to individuals personally, and so
:05:54. > :05:59.again, it comes back to this shortage of time to actually marshal
:06:00. > :06:03.the party as a cohesive group. David Cameron had banked on Ed Miliband's
:06:04. > :06:08.support, however, and given private concessions. But Julia Schoch,
:06:09. > :06:16.Labour decided instead on their own, more cautious motion. This was an
:06:17. > :06:21.important and significant moment. Labour wanted to demonstrate its
:06:22. > :06:27.knees and it also wanted to show that if push came to shove, it was
:06:28. > :06:33.not going to bowl at making a difficult decision `` demonstrate
:06:34. > :06:39.its unease. On paper, Labour's position was not so different to
:06:40. > :06:44.that of the government's. But in practice, it killed off David
:06:45. > :06:50.Cameron's plan. By the time he entered the Commons, a member of his
:06:51. > :06:54.team had in his pocket a speech to acknowledge defeat. Nothing had been
:06:55. > :06:58.written in the case of a victory. It was Ed Miliband's manoeuvres that
:06:59. > :07:07.something vote. The government saw it as treachery. The eyes to
:07:08. > :07:12.rewrite... The nose to the left. Ed Miliband's move did not force David
:07:13. > :07:17.Cameron to be this explicit. We have to listen to Parliament. Parliament
:07:18. > :07:21.spoke. Parliament, I think, made a very clear view, which is that it
:07:22. > :07:26.does not want British military action, so we will proceed on that
:07:27. > :07:39.basis. He says the threat from the Middle East now is deeper, stronger,
:07:40. > :07:43.it is harder to act. It did limit the government's power but that is
:07:44. > :07:48.not necessarily a bad thing. This is a parliamentary democracy. That is a
:07:49. > :07:53.good thing, given our past errors over the last decade. The fact that
:07:54. > :07:57.the UK backed off and the US then followed them just illustrated to
:07:58. > :08:02.these militia groups that, hang on, the West is hesitating here, here is
:08:03. > :08:08.a real opportunity. And they got into it. This defeat did more than
:08:09. > :08:11.prevent the UK's action. Both sides agree that it gave Parliament
:08:12. > :08:16.strength but reduced the UK's power. One year on, with threats
:08:17. > :08:20.more complex and more dangerous, any leader must work harder for
:08:21. > :08:29.permission to intervene or take a bigger and frankly unlikely gamble:
:08:30. > :08:37.Act now and ask later. The ironic inheritance of the vote was
:08:38. > :08:42.reticence. When one year on, risks to our safety and the Middle East's
:08:43. > :08:57.safety only grows. Thank you for joining us. Lord Ashdown, first of
:08:58. > :09:01.all, at the time of that last vote, you said that you are ashamed of
:09:02. > :09:04.Parliament. Do you still think it was a bad decision? Yes,
:09:05. > :09:11.undoubtedly. For the very first time in my memory, Britain refused to
:09:12. > :09:17.stand up for international rules. It was not about intervening in Iraq.
:09:18. > :09:20.To have provided weapons for the rebels in Iraq would not have been a
:09:21. > :09:23.wise ring because you would not have known into whose hands those weapons
:09:24. > :09:28.would have gone, and subsequent events have shown that. But when
:09:29. > :09:33.Assad crossed a Red Line, broke international law that had been in
:09:34. > :09:37.existence since 1925, that had restrained Hitler and had restrained
:09:38. > :09:42.Stalin, and the British Parliament decided to do nothing to stand up
:09:43. > :09:49.for international law, I think that was a shameful moment. I think what
:09:50. > :09:58.has happened subsequently, the American taking action together with
:09:59. > :10:01.France away from Britain forced Assad to come to the table and
:10:02. > :10:04.negotiate on the issue of chemical weapons. But elsewhere in the Middle
:10:05. > :10:08.East, the failure to act has convinced people that no matter what
:10:09. > :10:12.the nature of the transgression, we will not act. Yes, it was a bad
:10:13. > :10:19.move, and on wise move, and for the UK, a shameful one. There you are,
:10:20. > :10:24.Lord West. This shameful vote has allowed the rise of Islamic State.
:10:25. > :10:29.I'm delighted that 12 months ago we did not start bombing Syria with no
:10:30. > :10:34.clear aim of what the endgame was, no clear aim of where we were going.
:10:35. > :10:38.In terms of what ifs we could have an entire Syria controlled by ISIS
:10:39. > :10:42.if we had been doing that. We do not know how it would have gone. I think
:10:43. > :10:46.it was absolutely right that we did not charge into bombing them without
:10:47. > :10:51.any clear view of what our aim is. And far from being shameful, I think
:10:52. > :10:58.it was absolutely right. What I did not like was the final motion that
:10:59. > :11:08.was to dust in Parliament. It was watered down so much. Instead of a
:11:09. > :11:16.yes or no, it became much more fuzzy. Liam Fox, you argued very
:11:17. > :11:22.strongly for intervening. Do you think, as a country, we are
:11:23. > :11:26.diminished? I think that our influence has been diminished and I
:11:27. > :11:31.think people will wonder what our word is worth. I think Lord Ashdown
:11:32. > :11:35.is 100% correct. It was not about intervening in the civil war in
:11:36. > :11:38.Syria, it was about a response to a breach of international law, a clear
:11:39. > :11:43.and singular breach with regards the use of chemical weapons. What we
:11:44. > :11:46.were asking for was a limited response that would send a clear
:11:47. > :11:50.signal that the use could not be tolerated again. The fact that we
:11:51. > :11:53.did not send that signal sent a message to people who had Commons in
:11:54. > :11:59.the region that they could use them with impunity. That is the shameful
:12:00. > :12:07.moment. `` the people who had chemical weapons in the region. What
:12:08. > :12:10.about intervening with Iraq? I don't think that is entirely true because
:12:11. > :12:13.I think there was an understanding within the government that the
:12:14. > :12:16.Labour Party would give support until the end of the day. I think
:12:17. > :12:21.that was a dreadful mistake by Ed Miliband. Should there be in
:12:22. > :12:25.military intervention now and would it be impossible without
:12:26. > :12:31.parliamentary approval? I think that there should be intervention to deal
:12:32. > :12:37.with ISIS. What kind of action? Is ISIS is the threat we believe it to
:12:38. > :12:39.be, we have to stop it. We have to stop the sale of oil on the black
:12:40. > :12:44.market from which it derives its money. We need to disrupt the
:12:45. > :12:51.command and control and supply lines of ISIS, and that will require air
:12:52. > :12:55.strikes. British airstrikes? As well as those from the US. It is also
:12:56. > :12:59.important that the West provides close air cover for any ground
:13:00. > :13:04.offensive counter`attack by the Iraqis or the Kurds. Paddy Ashdown,
:13:05. > :13:08.Liam Fox says very clearly that if asked, we should be militarily
:13:09. > :13:14.involved in airstrikes. Do you think it is possible to do this without
:13:15. > :13:19.Parliament's say`so? One will every single possibility of military
:13:20. > :13:23.intervention be run past Westminster? If we are going to
:13:24. > :13:28.engage British military forces and put them in harm's way, it is proper
:13:29. > :13:32.that Parliament be consulted. I profoundly disagree with Liam Fox,
:13:33. > :13:35.by the way. We have to get away from this idea which says that in
:13:36. > :13:40.response to everything in the Middle East, our answer is bombs and
:13:41. > :13:47.rockets. There is a useful limited forms of air support to protect, for
:13:48. > :13:50.instance, the Kurdish state. There is also a use for such military
:13:51. > :13:55.action as would be consistent with an integrated policy. In my view,
:13:56. > :14:02.what is happening in the Middle East now is a very powerful, terrible but
:14:03. > :14:05.probably reasonably temporary convulsion but it will change the
:14:06. > :14:08.borders of the Middle East and what we need is an integrated policy of
:14:09. > :14:14.diplomacy with Turkey, for example, with Iran, to put pressure on Saudi
:14:15. > :14:18.Arabia to stop supporting the jihadis. And that is probably as
:14:19. > :14:22.important if not more so than military action. But it is the
:14:23. > :14:28.co`ordination of those ritual have the effect.
:14:29. > :14:40.Is the United States say they would like Britain to share the burden of
:14:41. > :14:45.limited involvement to reduce the military capability of ISIS and give
:14:46. > :14:49.forces a chance to walk. That network. If we went to a Nato summit
:14:50. > :14:53.and did not support the Americans but the manned that the rest of Nato
:14:54. > :15:01.pulls its weight, it would be bought for Britain to have that position.
:15:02. > :15:04.Should there be a clearly defined, limited strike after the Nato
:15:05. > :15:09.meeting, if we are asked, we should go ahead with strikes. Is it
:15:10. > :15:14.possible to have a limited, clearly defined mission in the Middle East?
:15:15. > :15:20.We need a clear strategy and endgame of where we want to go and we have
:15:21. > :15:25.to employ what we have at our disposal in terms of diplomatic,
:15:26. > :15:29.leaning on those within the region, stopping money flows from Qatar and
:15:30. > :15:32.Saudi Arabia, more pressure on prevent mechanisms in terms of
:15:33. > :15:38.radicalisation. This needs to be better co`ordinated. There is a
:15:39. > :15:42.change about thinking it is easy, let's fire some missiles and drop
:15:43. > :15:46.bombs, it will solve the problem. It doesn't solve the problem.
:15:47. > :15:51.Sometimes, you do have to use force. I have been involved in using force.
:15:52. > :15:57.It has got to be clearly thought out and you mustn't do it in a haphazard
:15:58. > :16:01.way. I think the attack on Syria one year ago would have been haphazard.
:16:02. > :16:05.You can't wrap on the knuckles. It does have to be proportionate. It
:16:06. > :16:10.has to be limited. It has to be part of a wider strategy. It has to be
:16:11. > :16:14.diplomatic, financial, political, but if we require a military element
:16:15. > :16:20.to complete the strategy, we should not be an unwilling to do it. Thank
:16:21. > :16:23.you all very much indeed. So, what are the guiding principles of the
:16:24. > :16:29.policy on intervention in foreign conflicts if there are any? 15 years
:16:30. > :16:34.since Cossiga, then Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, then Iraq. `` Kosovo.
:16:35. > :16:42.Was last year a turning point in the rest of the world was that here is
:16:43. > :16:55.our editor, Mark Urban. `` rest of the world?
:16:56. > :17:02.Historians and think tanks have been obsessed at the UK's global status.
:17:03. > :17:06.50 years ago, an American politician said Britain had found an empire but
:17:07. > :17:13.not found a role. Actually, Britain has had a well`defined role over the
:17:14. > :17:18.past half`century. That is acting as America's deputy in upholding
:17:19. > :17:23.international security. In the past, the past year, that has become
:17:24. > :17:29.highly uncertain as the British government has stepped back from
:17:30. > :17:32.foreign wars. I was quite surprised at how much the rest of the world
:17:33. > :17:36.took notice of what happened in Parliament that day because in the
:17:37. > :17:43.Gulf and even in east Asia and Japan, it was said, is Britain's
:17:44. > :17:47.serious about defence? Are you guys withdrawing from your space in world
:17:48. > :17:54.affairs. What seemed at the time to be a domestic blip, a serious one,
:17:55. > :17:58.in our political process, was perceived by the rest of the world
:17:59. > :18:02.as a tipping point in Britain's decline as a world power. A few
:18:03. > :18:09.weeks back, a senior special forces officer I met told me that the SAS
:18:10. > :18:12.weren't operating in Iraq because of the parliamentary vote. If they had
:18:13. > :18:17.got into combat, it might be deemed illegal. What would they be doing
:18:18. > :18:22.once the commitment in Afghanistan had wound down? More training
:18:23. > :18:25.missions, he suggested and Britain would rely more on the soft power of
:18:26. > :18:30.the international development department. The forces, intelligence
:18:31. > :18:34.agencies and Foreign Office have geared themselves to the
:18:35. > :18:40.government's view that absent a 9/11 scale event, Britain has lost its
:18:41. > :18:46.will to confront enemies overseas. It would be realistic of me to say
:18:47. > :18:50.that I would not expect, except in extreme circumstances, I would not
:18:51. > :18:55.expect to see a manifestation of great appetite for plunging into
:18:56. > :19:02.another long period of engagement anytime soon. So, the government has
:19:03. > :19:06.rushed for the door in Afghanistan, drawing down as quickly as possible
:19:07. > :19:11.in my shunning significant commitment to follow on training for
:19:12. > :19:17.the Afghan forces. We have seen a reduction in British commitment,
:19:18. > :19:22.evidenced by the British extreme reluctance to get involved with the
:19:23. > :19:27.commitment to a training, advising and assisting mission in Afghanistan
:19:28. > :19:31.when the ISAF mission concludes at the end of this year. What we have
:19:32. > :19:36.seen is countries like Germany and Italy stepping forward to fill the
:19:37. > :19:40.gap in supporting the Americans which Britain traditionally did. One
:19:41. > :19:43.year ago, the result of that British vote reverberated across the
:19:44. > :19:48.Atlantic, feeding doubt into the US Congress, which then declined to
:19:49. > :19:55.support US strikes on Syria. Britain had gone from being the dependable
:19:56. > :19:58.partner to a more questionable ally. I think the vote in Parliament
:19:59. > :20:03.impact of the President because within a couple of days he decided
:20:04. > :20:10.to seek a vote in Congress which he hadn't planned to do here. That
:20:11. > :20:13.faded away. It was little more than a ripple in the long`term
:20:14. > :20:17.relationship with written and I think when the president gets is
:20:18. > :20:21.strategy together he will hope as I will be British will be by our site
:20:22. > :20:25.again as they have been so often `` Britain. Can there be a new concept
:20:26. > :20:29.about when it is right to intervene? Tony Blair might have
:20:30. > :20:34.gone in with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan but he did also take
:20:35. > :20:37.unilateral military action in Sierra Leone and he favoured the concept of
:20:38. > :20:43.what is called humanitarian intervention. It is believed to be
:20:44. > :20:48.the concept of responsibility to protect in cases where ethnic
:20:49. > :20:57.lensing or genocide were imminent. `` ethnic cleansing.
:20:58. > :21:00.Is the Prime Minister, who has marched his troops down the
:21:01. > :21:07.interventionist deal, now at the mercy of events marking them back up
:21:08. > :21:10.again? `` Hill. The RAF is flying over Iraq once more but is dropping
:21:11. > :21:16.aid, not bombs, for the moment anyway. The government insists it
:21:17. > :21:22.has not been asked yet to join American air strikes. The signs are
:21:23. > :21:25.that this government doesn't want to take major military action in this
:21:26. > :21:32.crisis no matter whether that is independently or as resident over
:21:33. > :21:39.my's junior partner. `` President Obama's. Britainwant a role in the
:21:40. > :21:42.world it is just uncertain about how it wants to carve it.
:21:43. > :21:48.Mark Urban to discuss this. I am joined by the former chief of
:21:49. > :21:55.general staff, prevents, Professor for the armour and professor at the
:21:56. > :21:59.London School of economics. Are we living in a world in which
:22:00. > :22:06.Britain is unwilling or unable to exercise our military power? No, I
:22:07. > :22:08.don't think we are. Your conversation earlier this evening in
:22:09. > :22:13.the programme quite rightly focused on the debate in Parliament one year
:22:14. > :22:20.ago. I was one of those who spoke against intervention and bombing at
:22:21. > :22:27.that stage as Lord West also did. The issue then was an unclear issue
:22:28. > :22:30.which could potentially have asked bombing in a complex civil war and
:22:31. > :22:36.the consequences of what we had done weren't clear. We were right to vote
:22:37. > :22:43.against that. It caused a check on American ambitions and lead the
:22:44. > :22:49.Russians to get involved `` led. It led to the removal of most Syria and
:22:50. > :22:54.legal weapons. Once upon a time, America was the World Cup is a
:22:55. > :22:59.policeman. No longer. We aren't the lieutenant willing to do anything.
:23:00. > :23:05.`` world's policeman. Until we understand the problems that Iraq at
:23:06. > :23:12.us, we can't move onto a different kind of world peace? I think what
:23:13. > :23:17.Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated is that you don't have the knowledge or
:23:18. > :23:22.ability to create specific political outcomes like looking democracy in
:23:23. > :23:29.either of those countries. We still have a lot of power and a lot of
:23:30. > :23:32.national interest. I think that the situation in Iraq and Syria have
:23:33. > :23:36.deteriorated to the point that we have to be hardheaded right now
:23:37. > :23:42.about protecting some core interest. I think that you can
:23:43. > :23:47.define a strategy fairly simply, that we, the United States, Britain
:23:48. > :23:52.and other Western powers up until this point act as offshore
:23:53. > :23:59.balances. Our objective should be to prevent any of these bad actors like
:24:00. > :24:07.ISIS will like the Assad government in Syria from dominating the region
:24:08. > :24:09.`` or. If you move your gaze to the Russia and Ukraine crisis and
:24:10. > :24:15.Ukraine to not calling for membership of Nato to come under
:24:16. > :24:21.that Umbro, `` tonight `` Dumbrell, is that the conflict, where the
:24:22. > :24:29.danger is that Putin's ambition threatens us all? `` umbrella. I
:24:30. > :24:32.think that Ukraine is a more serious threat, not only to us but to other
:24:33. > :24:48.countries that are important to us. Anything going on in the spreading
:24:49. > :24:52.Sunni `Shia war. Putin is supporting Russians outside Russia, it will be
:24:53. > :24:59.destabilising in Europe. Nato needs to get serious on the military
:25:00. > :25:04.alliance. It hasn't for 20 years. I think it is difficult. It is
:25:05. > :25:12.difficult to defeat the Islamic State through war fighting. I don't
:25:13. > :25:17.think that's possible. I think it is key... It might not be possible to
:25:18. > :25:21.create democracy but it is key to have an inclusive political
:25:22. > :25:25.arrangement. Politics is key to dealing with these things. When you
:25:26. > :25:32.look at what is happening in Europe, with Putin and what the
:25:33. > :25:36.threat looks like, does Nato have to step up to the challenge again
:25:37. > :25:40.western market do we have to stand nose to nose and show our power? I
:25:41. > :25:45.think it is terribly dangerous to do that but at the same time again we
:25:46. > :25:49.are talking in geopolitical terms whereas if you look at what is
:25:50. > :25:55.happening in eastern Ukraine, what was a democracy movement is being
:25:56. > :26:01.turned into an ethnic conflict with displacement and human rights
:26:02. > :26:04.violations. We need to shift the discourse from geopolitics to
:26:05. > :26:10.humanitarian issues. Thank you all very much indeed. I am afraid that
:26:11. > :26:18.is all we have time for from this Newsnight special.
:26:19. > :26:25.Hello. We lose the influence of low pressure to be replaced with high
:26:26. > :26:26.pressure as we head into the