Parliament in ‘Group-Speak’ over Syria

Proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday and on Monday seemed to be in a parallel universe.  Member after member rose to say something had to be done about Assad and his gas/chemical attacks.

On Monday, out of 140 MPs who spoke, only around thirty were in any way critical of the bombing raid.  Most of those were more concerned that Parliament had not voted prior.  As indeed it should have done.  Only two, Edward Leigh and Richard Bacon, mentioned Syria’s Christians.  Only Naseem Shah asked whether the alleged attack actually took place.  (And Mrs Shah is not normally someone with whom we have any agreement.)

It may well have done.  But we need honesty from our rulers.  On Monday, and on Tuesday, all we saw was ducking and diving, assertions, and pleas to ‘trust us.’  Sadly, successive governments have poisoned the well of public trust.  That should be the focus for our prayers.

Theresa May dodged the Barzah question

Theresa May responded to all Jeremy Corbyn’s questions on Monday bar one.  And what was that one?  It was the point we raised on Monday in our article.  And it was to do with a report from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  This report was dated March 2018.  It stated, in paragraph 11:

‘the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention during the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities.’

Jeremy Corbyn asked: ‘In relation to the air strikes against the Barzeh and Him Shinsar facilities, the Prime Minister will be aware that the OPCW carried out inspections on both those facilities in 2017 and concluded that “the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations” under the chemical weapons convention. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether she believes that the OPCW was wrong in that assessment, or does she have separate intelligence that the nature of those activities has changed within the last five months?’

Mrs May ignored the question and sadly, Mr Corbyn did not press her.

Mrs May dodged it again

It was left to Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) to pick up the Barzah point again.

‘The Prime Minister has said that the legal basis relies on there having been no practicable alternative to the use of force. Further to that, can she confirm exactly when the UK identified Him Shinsar as a chemical weapons storage facility, when it identified the chemical research facility at Barzeh as a chemical weapons research centre, when this information was reported to the OPCW and whether the UK has asked the OPCW to inspect both sites?’

Again, the Prime Minister avoided a direct answer.  ‘We have been very clear that we would like it to be possible for the OPCW to investigate sites in Syria, for there to be proper identification of the chemical weapons and for there to be proper accountability for the use of those chemical weapons.’

There is only one conclusion.  The Government had no intelligence on the two sites.  They were clear of chemical weapons.  We bombed them anyway.  That’s a poor show.

Prime Minster and the OPCW

Mrs May then spoke about the alleged attack last year at Khan Shaykhun.

According to Hansard (Col148), Mrs May said: ‘The OPCW-UN joint investigative mechanism has found Syria responsible for using chemical weapons on four occasions between 2014 and 2017, including at Talamenes in April 2014, at Sarmin and Qamenas in March 2015—both involved the regime using chlorine—and at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April last year, when the regime used sarin to kill around 100 people, with a further 500 casualties.

When we first published this article, we accused Mrs May of lying about this point. That now appears to be an unfair accusation and we apologise.  The reason for the accusation was this statement from the OPCW:

The OPCW reported, on 30th June 2017:  ‘the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) confirmed that people were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon, on 4 April 2017 in the Khan Shaykhun area, Idlib Province in the Syrian Arab Republic.  The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.’

The OPCW found no-one responsible for the alleged attack at Sarmin in Idlib province either.  Its report on that incident is here.

OPCW-UN Reports on ReliefWeb

Nevertheless, there is what appears to be a genuine letter from the OPCW-UN joint investigative mechanism on the ReliefWeb site.  That does indeed find the Syrian Arab Republic responsible for a Sarin attack at Khan Shaykhun.  It also finds Islamic State (or ISIS) responsible for a chlorine gas attack at Umm Hawsh.

Furthermore, what appears to be the Mechanism Fifth Report, also here on the ReliefWeb website, says:

‘4. In the Mechanism’s third and fourth reports, the Leadership Panel reported that it had reached a conclusion as to the actors involved in the following four cases: Talmenes (21 April 2014), Sarmin (16 March 2015), Qmenas (16 March 2015) and Marea (21 August 2015). In relation to the first three incidents, the Panel had determined that the Syrian Arab Armed Forces had been involved in the use of toxic chemicals as weapons and that their helicopters had been used to drop barrel bombs in those three cases.’

The OPCW-UN attributed the attack in Marea to Islamic State.

ReliefWeb is a specialized digital service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Peter Hitchens in his blog casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the JIM conclusions.  But they very much suited the Prime Minister in her anti=-Assad rant.

Dodgy Dossiers

It may be that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons at Douma.  Or it may have been a ‘false flag’ event from the jihadis.  It is almost impossible to tell.  Mrs May possibly thinks it was President Assad who did it.  Or at least, she wants him to have done it.

The trouble is, it is now so difficult to trust our politicians.  Two weeks ago, Boris Johnson lied about the information he received from Porton Down.  That was in the Skripal case.  Tony Blair lied to the public and Parliament about ‘intelligence’ before the Iraq war in 2003.

Mr Blair published a ‘Dodgy Dossier’ ostensibly from our intelligence people.  Saddam had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.  (If he had, we sold them to him, by the way.)  His weapons could devastate UK cities in 45 minutes.  It was all a pack of lies.

Scientist Dr David Kelly was found dead at that time in suspicious circumstances.  He was a weapons inspector. He knew all about Iraq and its weapons, or lack of them.

Post-truth, post-shame

Then in 2015, David Cameron lied to Parliament about how many moderate opposition forces could be raised in Syria.  He said it was 70,000.  Writing in the Guardian, Roy Greenslade asked:

‘Will any prime minister desperate to become a war leader ever tell us the truth? David Cameron’s claim to there being 70,000 Syrian rebels ready to do battle with Isis looks as dodgy as Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier.’

It is very serious indeed that we cannot trust our political leaders to do something as basic as tell the truth.  One journalist even said they have moved from post-truth to post-shame.  A succession of leaders have poisoned the well of public trust.  And I have to say, many MPs in the Palace of Westminster simply do not understand that.

The loss of truth is prophesied in the Bible:

Isaiah 59:14  And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

Calling politicians back to truth should be perhaps the main focus of our prayers for Parliament.

Privy Councillors had a briefing!

One Privy Councillor who supported the Government told me he received a briefing with intelligence reports and therefore knew more about the matters in hand than I do.   There are at least three problems with that.

Firstly, Jeremy Corbyn is also a Privy Councillor.  So is Kenneth Clarke.  And both of them took a different view.  And a somewhat different view from each other as it happens.

Secondly, the ‘White Helmets’ must  have provided a lot of the ‘intelligence’.  They were created and are funded by the British Foreign Office.  They are also embedded with the jihadists we support.  So guess what intelligence they are going to provide?

Thirdly, he means only Privy Councillors know enough to make decisions about matters of state.  In that event, the rest of us in the ignorant masses should shut up.  But that cannot be how things work here.  We are all entitled to inform ourselves as best we can, seek the Lord in his word and pray into these things.  Above all, we must never be deterred from calling our politicians to account, be they never so high.

Syria’s Christians

Finally, the two MPs who mentioned Syria’s Christians were not among those we regularly mention as ‘Christian MPs.’  They were the Anglican, Richard Bacon, and Sir Edward Leigh, a Roman Catholic .

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) interrupted Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (col 134).  He said: ‘I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s speech’.  Then he asked: ‘What would be the plight of the Christians in Syria if Bashar al-Assad were deposed?’  Sir Geoffrey replied: ‘It is very hard to know.’

With respect, ‘No it isn’t, Sir Geoffrey!’  They would be butchered.

According to Network Norwich, Mr Bacon ‘firmly believes that problems in the Middle East can be resolved through improved relations with Russia and Iran (He is co-chair with Jack Straw of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Iran, has visited the country and seen the fairness and kindness of the people.)  “Blessed are the Peacemakers.”’

Sir Edward Leigh

Sir Edward Leigh’s contribution was in the form of a speech rather than an interruption.  It starts at column 236 in this Hansard record and is well worth reading.

Firstly, Sir Edward quoted a line from the statement from the leaders of three of Syria’s largest churches:  “It causes us great pain that this assault comes from powerful countries to which Syria did not cause any harm in any way.”

 Here is the full statement on the Antioch Patriarchate website.  It was posted immediately after the bombing raids.

Secondly, Sir Edward said ‘These Christian leaders are under great pressure from the Assad regime to toe the party line, as it were.  But the fact is that their responsibility is to protect their own communities, which are under unprecedented pressure.  We have to take some account of the pressure on Christian communities.

Thirdly, he shared how US and UK bombing in the Middle East puts Christian lives at risk all over the Muslim world.

Finally, Sir Edward concluded: ‘The fact is that as much as we detest Assad and as much as he is a dictator, none of us, as Christians, would want to live in area of Syria that was outside Assad’s control, because ​he would protect us. That is a difficult thing to say in Parliament and not everybody will agree with it, but I have to say what I have to say.’

Sir Edward told me afterwards he ‘was heard in silence’.

Pray for Parliament

If you wish to read all the Hansard for Monday 16th April 2018 or Tuesday 17th, here is a link to the Parliament website.  And here is the link to email your MP.  Let your MP know you are praying for him/her.

Proverbs 25:5  Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.

We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post: