In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris last week, French President Francois Hollande has put France on a war footing, launching "massive" air strikes in Syria. Obama has pledged to redouble US military efforts against Islamic State (IS). Representatives from nations including France and the US met in Vienna at the weekend for a pre-planned summit aimed at co-ordinating the international fight against IS.
In the UK, there are many who say we should be stepping up military action. Prime Minister David Cameron would like to extend the UK's contribution to international air strikes against IS so that it covers not only Iraq, where we are already engaged, but Syria too. Before he does so, he has said he wants a consensus in favour of action in the House of Commons. This is not forthcoming—Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed, and has said he favours a "diplomatic solution."
In light of this we asked experts whether an immediate diplomatic solution is possible in Syria, or whether military action is necessary.
Too often I think calls for a "diplomatic solution" are code for western politicians to sit on their hands and do nothing. They also neatly dodge the fact that efforts have been made for the past four years to reach a diplomatic solution—but to no avail. ISIS’s aims are also non-negotiable—should they be allowed to keep "some," but perhaps not all, their sex slaves? As for Assad—he’s only going to want to negotiate from a position of weakness, which requires that military pressure be put on him. Diplomacy is important, but no panacea on its own.
A transition out of the Syrian civil war is a necessity. The international community is beginning to find the political will to enable that, as agreed at Vienna by all the key countries and partners. The challenges we face are immense. We should be under no illusion that airstrikes alone will secure the defeat of ISIL and the reduction of the threat that its underlying ideology poses to us. By extending its terror beyond Syria's borders, ISIL is creating the international political will to deprive it of the vacuum from which it operates its so-called "caliphate."
A diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria isn't only possible, it's critical. Following 15 years of militarism by the West in the Middle East—and after hundreds of thousands of deaths and with Isis going from strength to strength—it's critical that a new wave of diplomacy takes hold.
IS likes to present itself as the true guardian of Islam under attack from the "crusader west." This message, though dangerous and wrong, is reinforced by further Western attacks, which serve as effective recruiting sergeants for despots seeking to cement their power. Instead our governments should be using their clout to push for diplomatic solutions. That means encouraging the Iraqi Government to reach out to the country's Sunni minority—thus cutting a key source of anger and frustration for IS recruits. And it also means getting major players, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia, to build on the limited progress made in Vienna over the weekend.
It's also crucial that our Government reassess short sighted cutbacks to the foreign office and diplomatic service. Their work will be key in building and maintaining a lasting peace in Syria and the wider region.
The West’s policy towards Syria has failed. The Geneva peace talks of 2012, 2013 and 2014 led nowhere. The failure to launch air strikes after Assad’s chemical weapons attacks left the West enfeebled. The use of force should never be ruled out.
Now Russia has forced our hand, launching airstrikes and asking us to back Assad, to defeat ISIS. This approach will not work because there is no plan for Syria’s future. We need a roadmap for peace which sets out the future of the Syrian state, power sharing, the path to democratic elections and protection for ethnic and religious minorities. The longer we leave it the harder it will be.
There is no simple solution to Syria—not military, not diplomatic. Sending in a few war planes changes nothing, although it offers the illusion of action and a fleeting impression of solidarity. We know too that it makes no sense to tackle ISIS and Assad simultaneously, that Russia's engagement offers an opportunity as well as a challenge, that diplomacy requires a collective will and works only if there is the hope of stability, which requires boots on the ground. The question is: whose boots, and pointing in which direction? Its time to hit the Syria reset button, stop deluding ourselves that an Exocet or two, or killing a few of our own nationals, will contribute anything much. Its time we had a policy on Syria and the region, not a series of half-baked, knee-jerk, delusional instincts.
Diplomatic solutions are what happen when those involved in a conflict and their backers conclude they have more to gain from stopping than from carrying on. Last week's agreement in Vienna, involving America and Russia as well as all the important regional countries and Europeans, may just mark such a turning point. The West and Russia have tried air strikes, achieved little, and suffered for it. None has the appetite for deeper intervention. Assad should be content to hang on in his rump state "for a period." The rebels will not welcome a cease-fire, but will be pressured. So fingers crossed.
In the UK, there are many who say we should be stepping up military action. Prime Minister David Cameron would like to extend the UK's contribution to international air strikes against IS so that it covers not only Iraq, where we are already engaged, but Syria too. Before he does so, he has said he wants a consensus in favour of action in the House of Commons. This is not forthcoming—Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed, and has said he favours a "diplomatic solution."
In light of this we asked experts whether an immediate diplomatic solution is possible in Syria, or whether military action is necessary.
Don't sit on your hands
James Bloodworth—Editor of Left Foot ForwardToo often I think calls for a "diplomatic solution" are code for western politicians to sit on their hands and do nothing. They also neatly dodge the fact that efforts have been made for the past four years to reach a diplomatic solution—but to no avail. ISIS’s aims are also non-negotiable—should they be allowed to keep "some," but perhaps not all, their sex slaves? As for Assad—he’s only going to want to negotiate from a position of weakness, which requires that military pressure be put on him. Diplomacy is important, but no panacea on its own.
Political will
Crispin Blunt—Chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs CommitteeA transition out of the Syrian civil war is a necessity. The international community is beginning to find the political will to enable that, as agreed at Vienna by all the key countries and partners. The challenges we face are immense. We should be under no illusion that airstrikes alone will secure the defeat of ISIL and the reduction of the threat that its underlying ideology poses to us. By extending its terror beyond Syria's borders, ISIL is creating the international political will to deprive it of the vacuum from which it operates its so-called "caliphate."
Not just "possible" but critical
Caroline Lucas—Green Party MP for Brighton PavilionA diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria isn't only possible, it's critical. Following 15 years of militarism by the West in the Middle East—and after hundreds of thousands of deaths and with Isis going from strength to strength—it's critical that a new wave of diplomacy takes hold.
IS likes to present itself as the true guardian of Islam under attack from the "crusader west." This message, though dangerous and wrong, is reinforced by further Western attacks, which serve as effective recruiting sergeants for despots seeking to cement their power. Instead our governments should be using their clout to push for diplomatic solutions. That means encouraging the Iraqi Government to reach out to the country's Sunni minority—thus cutting a key source of anger and frustration for IS recruits. And it also means getting major players, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia, to build on the limited progress made in Vienna over the weekend.
It's also crucial that our Government reassess short sighted cutbacks to the foreign office and diplomatic service. Their work will be key in building and maintaining a lasting peace in Syria and the wider region.
We've wavered long enough
Mary Creagh - Labour MP for Wakefield and 2015 Labour Leadership CandidateThe West’s policy towards Syria has failed. The Geneva peace talks of 2012, 2013 and 2014 led nowhere. The failure to launch air strikes after Assad’s chemical weapons attacks left the West enfeebled. The use of force should never be ruled out.
Now Russia has forced our hand, launching airstrikes and asking us to back Assad, to defeat ISIS. This approach will not work because there is no plan for Syria’s future. We need a roadmap for peace which sets out the future of the Syrian state, power sharing, the path to democratic elections and protection for ethnic and religious minorities. The longer we leave it the harder it will be.
Hit the reset button
Phillippe Sands—lecturer and lawyerThere is no simple solution to Syria—not military, not diplomatic. Sending in a few war planes changes nothing, although it offers the illusion of action and a fleeting impression of solidarity. We know too that it makes no sense to tackle ISIS and Assad simultaneously, that Russia's engagement offers an opportunity as well as a challenge, that diplomacy requires a collective will and works only if there is the hope of stability, which requires boots on the ground. The question is: whose boots, and pointing in which direction? Its time to hit the Syria reset button, stop deluding ourselves that an Exocet or two, or killing a few of our own nationals, will contribute anything much. Its time we had a policy on Syria and the region, not a series of half-baked, knee-jerk, delusional instincts.
What's to gain?
Nick Witney—Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign RelationsDiplomatic solutions are what happen when those involved in a conflict and their backers conclude they have more to gain from stopping than from carrying on. Last week's agreement in Vienna, involving America and Russia as well as all the important regional countries and Europeans, may just mark such a turning point. The West and Russia have tried air strikes, achieved little, and suffered for it. None has the appetite for deeper intervention. Assad should be content to hang on in his rump state "for a period." The rebels will not welcome a cease-fire, but will be pressured. So fingers crossed.
