The world’s media has been dominated by the politics of how to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians on 21 August.
As often happens, the facts are obscured by false claims and rumours. The main question is whether the United States will launch a military attack. The United Kingdom has decided not to join any military action, following a debate in Parliament. But as an international player, the UK will continue to play a significant role in trying to end the bloodshed in Syria.
The first thing we can do is highlight the facts. The starting point is the horror of the use of chemical weapons. Almost 100 years ago the world saw over 1.25 million soldiers in the First World War become casualties of the first major use of such weapons. Over 91,000 died, many of them Russian.
The descriptions of how these men died are truly horrific. They suffered agonising deaths, blinded by mustard gas or choked by chlorine gas.
The world then came together to ban the use of such abhorrent weapons. Indeed, the Second World War – in which over 50 million people died – saw no use of chemical weapons. The world’s determination to outlaw such weapons and destroy stockpiles led to the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention. 189 countries have signed up to this agreement – but Syria has refused to do so.
There can be no doubt that the Syrian regime has the capacity, the materials and the trained personnel to use chemical weapons. The evidence of that use is now visible for all the world to see. The pictures of rows of dead children, the YouTube videos of young men shuddering and foaming at the mouth show clearly that banned substances have been used.
Claims that such evidence could have been faked defy belief. Medecins sans Frontieres assess that there were 3,600 casualties and the Americans have stated that 1,429 people were killed, including 429 children. This is clearly a war crime.
Of course, this attack is not the first atrocity committed by the Assad regime. The brutal crackdown on public protest two and half years ago has grown into a major civil war that has killed over 100,000 people and forced almost 2 million people to flee to neighbouring countries. In the face of this tragedy, our efforts to mobilise the United Nations Security Council have been frustrated in the past and are now being frustrated once again.
The question is how the international community should now act in the face of such an atrocity. From the UK’s point of view, the Parliamentary vote last week has ruled out military intervention. The government will respect the will of Parliament. But that does not mean that the UK will not play a role. Far from it.
We still believe strongly that we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century to go unchallenged. Ignoring it or sweeping it under the carpet would send a dangerous message.
So the UK will continue to work with the EU, the US, Jordan and other international partners to pursue a political solution to the crisis in Syria. There can be no military solution. Too much blood has been spilt on both sides.
So a robust political process is essential. No-one is pretending that a political transition to a new, pluralistic, democratic state will be easy. And the risk of extremism is significant. But it is in everyone’s interests to make the political track work.
The humanitarian response is also a top priority. Over 6 million Syrians have fled their homes many of them arriving in countries like Jordan that are keeping their borders open and showing enormous generosity in helping people in need.
The UK has contributed over US$540 million to this effort and is working with other donors, the UN and NGOs to provide shelter, food, medicine, education and health services to the refugees and support for the host communities.
We have a deep interest in working with governments in the region, including Jordan in maintaining stability and security in the face of the instability in Syria. I am well aware that Jordanians are worried about the threat from chemical weapons and the impact on Jordan of this conflict.
We all need to work together to tackle the symptoms of the Syrian conflict disease, but also work on the longer-term prognosis and cure, lest it infect the whole region.
Much of the debate, both here and internationally is tainted by the history of Iraq in 2003. I understand that. But it is important to recognise that the crisis in Syria is not the same as in Iraq. We have seen the proven use of chemical weapons; it is clear that there will be no land invasion; and the essential political transition will have to be the result of a political process.
Finally, the wider narrative on political reform has changed in the last 10 years. Western countries have not responded to the so-called Arab Spring with a prescription or model of democracy for the Middle East. Just as the government in Britain has said that it will respect the views of their democratically-elected representatives, so we should acknowledge that each country in the Middle East must develop and design its democracy according to its own history, traditions and culture.