Dear Mr Cunningham,
I am writing to you as I am increasingly concerned by the way the debate in Parliament on military action is going, and the direction in which Mr Cameron seems to be taking our country in his proposed response to the Paris terrorism attacks.
We have all been horrified by the indiscriminate brutality of the Paris attacks. Like the rest of the population, I would not want to see such atrocities take place in Britain, and I would want to stand in solidarity with our neighbours in France.
However, I cannot see how military action in Syria can do anything but escalate the crisis, and cause even further suffering for thousands of innocent people. I understand that the death toll in Syria after four years of civil war is now over 250,000, nearly half of them civilians, and over 12,000 children. The lessons of Iraq tell us clearly that, no matter how technologically advanced our weapons, the reality is that we cannot accurately target terrorist groups in these countries, and that the more the fighting escalates the higher the civilian death toll will rise. If we respond to the terrorist threats with airstrikes and bombs, innocent civilians and children will inevitably die. We cannot take that risk.
It is also difficult to see how military action could possibly do anything other than strengthen the cause of terrorists. Writing in the Guardian on 27.11.15, journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer pointed out that in 2001 there were perhaps a couple of hundred terrorists in the Hindu Kush; following George Bush’s war on terror, and the loss of as many as one million Iraqi lives, there are now an estimated 100,000 terrorists posing a threat to the international community. Isis was apparently created six months after the start of that invasion. If the West continues to drop bombs on Syria, killing civilians in the process, this will only provide welcome ammunition to Isis and result in the alienation and radicalisation of yet more disenfranchised people.
The lesson is clear: we cannot beat terror with terror.
I recognise that there are no easy solutions to the threats posed by terrorist groups, nor to the ongoing oppression of unjust regimes in Syria and elsewhere. However, there are alternatives to the escalation that would come with air strikes. I would suggest four key strategies in which we could positively engage: to stop Gulf states delivering weapons to terrorists in Syria and Iraq; to help Turkey seal its long border and prevent the flow of new fighters joining Isis; to support moves to give the Sunni population in these countries a voice; and to fully invest in social and economic development in Syria and its neighbours.
Wardah Khalid, Peace Fellow in Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation in the States makes similar proposals:
‘Create a comprehensive, multilateral strategy with our allies, including the Arab League and the U.N., that includes such tools as a regional arms embargo to prevent weapons from going into the wrong hands, penalties for purchasing illicit oil that funds the Islamic State group and more money for diplomacy and humanitarian aid. A political solution to Syria and its President Bashar Assad must also be revisited, as the power vacuum there is what allowed radicals and their foreign backers to first take hold.’[1]
So I would ask you, for the sake of the many suffering children and adults in Syria, and for the sake of our own national security, to please vote against any military action in Syria.
Yours sincerely
[1] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/02/18/stopping-the-islamic-state-group-without-the-bombs?src=usn_tw