The debate about the Syrian crisis is now as much about shoulda, woulda, coulda, as it is about what can happen now. Douglas Alexander’s response to the G8 communique this afternoon said:
‘This statement begs the question whether a different diplomatic approach by the Prime Minister, not focusing so much effort on lifting the arms embargo, but instead engaging the Russians at an earlier stage, could have resulted in a different and more positive outcome.’
So Labour would not have started from here. Beyond that Alexander isn’t clear about when that golden opportunity for engaging the Russians was, and whether he really believes that there was a point at which Putin could have turned anyway. If Assad survives, it will send out the message to other dictators that having Russia on your side is the way to go, which is why the Russians are so keen to stand firm on the president’s future, and why his name didn’t make it into the communique.
Boris Johnson warned on Monday that an intervention now would come too late to improve the situation in Syria, while Alexander is concerned that the UK has not prepared the ground sufficiently in advance of negotiations with the Russians. Meanwhile Conservative MPs fear that William Hague has failed to make the case for the leap from ‘we must do something’ to that something being arming the rebels, therefore failing to prepare the ground in Parliament too. That there is so much discussion of political tactics, as well as the virtues and dangers of the proposed policy itself is not encouraging for the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary.
The next Spectator Debate on 24 June will be debating the motion ‘Assad is a war criminal. The West must intervene in Syria’ with Malcolm Rifkind, Andrew Green, Douglas Murray and more. Click here to book tickets.
Comments