You Don't Speak For Me!

ALEX HALL IS OUTRAGED THAT THE UNION COUNCIL IS BASING POLICY ON MISINFORMATION.

You probably aren’t aware that yesterday, the Union Council met to vote on motions put forward by students and council members. Even if you were aware they were going to meet, you probably didn’t care, and rightfully so seeing as the meetings are usually painfully dull; but there was something different about this meeting. In this meeting, the 12 members of the Union Council that decided to show up were voting on a public denunciation of the government’s decision to start bombing Islamic State in Syria.

That’s right. The 12 members of the Union Council are telling the world how all 38,000 UCL students feel about British involvement in Syria. Since when does such a small percentage of the student body (0.03% to be exact) get to speak for all of us? Maybe this Council decision would sit better with me if the motion, proposed by Katba Imansouren (Activities Officer), weren’t based on inaccurate information. Let’s break down the motion point by point.

Point 1: The murder of innocent civilians by any force is evil, horrific and unjustified. Congratulations, you are a human being.

Point 2: The murder of innocent civilians by Western governments in particular will only lead to the propagation of further turbulence and terrorism in the region. This is a good point. Civilian casualties caused by Western military intervention can incite hatred. American military rules of engagement during the occupation of Iraq, which involved a lot of ‘shoot first, ask questions later’, tended to fuel the insurgency rather than defeat it. Fortunately, we have learned a lot since the occupation of Iraq. Over the past 2 years the U.S. led coalition have flown 8,542 sorties against Islamic State which have resulted in 2 civilian casualties. Yep, 2 civilian casualties. So unless the people of Iraq and Syria have issues with us destroying Islamic State I don’t think we will be propagating further turbulence and terrorism in the region.

Point 3: Hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians are likely to die as a result of the action taken. I’ll go back to my previous point for this one. WE ARE NOT BOMBING CIVILIANS! Air strikes are not carried out if there is a risk of collateral damage. During the 1,400 sorties flown by the RAF in Iraq, weapons were only fired 382 times. This shows that the coalition is not bombing random targets. The coalition is taking its time deciding when and where to strike to ensure that only members of Islamic State are being killed. Also most of the areas being targeted by air strikes, such as Raqqa, are devoid of civilian activity. A vast majority of the civilian population fled as soon as Islamic State took control of the region.

Point 4: The decision to bomb Syria was rushed and a credible case has not been made. The 397 MPs who voted for air strikes would disagree with you. MPs do not make rushed judgements about something as serious as war. There is a lot of internal and external debate. They weigh the facts and then come to a decision that they feel represents their constituents and benefits the nation. They don’t take these matters lightly.

Point 5: That numerous demonstrations by the public were ignored and the decision made was not representative of the majority. I think you’ll find that those demonstrators were the minority, not the majority. A Yougov poll found that 59% of Britons supported extending air strikes into Syria. The same poll found that 41% of Britons would support a joint US and UK ground invasion of Syria in order to fight Islamic State.

Image: YouGov

Point 6: That at a time when nearly every public department and sector are seeing their budgets slashed in the name of austerity, this is an unjustifiable expenditure. The money for these air strikes isn’t being taken from other areas of public expenditure. The money comes from a special pot that is set aside to pay for military engagements. Nice try though.

Point 7: The situation in Syria is a complex one with multiple groups involved, not focusing on the complete picture with a coherent strategy for long term stability and peace will be counterproductive. Therefore, any solution for intervention must take into account all conflicts including those between Syrian rebels and Assad. It is true that the conflict in Syria is incredibly complex. It is the most complex battlefield in the modern world. A long term strategy regarding Syria is going to require ‘boots on the ground’ and it’s unlikely that those boots will be ours. The government is likely to pass the burden of a ground invasion to regional partners, or possibly the newly founded ‘Islamic military alliance’ led by Saudi Arabia.

Point 8: A solution for intervention must take into account President Assad. Between January and July this year, President Assad’s forces were responsible for 7 times as many civilian deaths within Syria as Daesh (According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights). The solution and roadmap to peace must include solutions, which resolve all conflicting angles, including the rule of President Assad.  The government agrees that the Assad regime must be removed from power. The US-led coalition supplies moderate rebel groups with weapons and trains them in unconventional warfare. No Western government supports the Assad regime and any long term strategy regarding Syria would obviously include removing Assad from power and installing a democracy.

Point 9: While all parties would agree that Daesh continues to pose an international threat and must be combated, thoughtless bombing is not the answer, especially since there isn’t an overall diplomatic solution.  When it comes to Islamic State there is no diplomatic solution. They are a group that aims to destroy anyone who does not believe in their twisted form of Islam and install a worldwide Islamist regime. Bombing is not a solution to the problem but it is a step in the right direction. By destroying Islamic State’s economy from the air we might be able to weaken them enough so that they can be destroyed by forces already on the ground in Syria. The air strikes taking place are far from thoughtless. This isn’t World War 2. We aren’t randomly dropping hundreds of tons of ordnance over cities packed with civilians; the RAF are using precision guided munitions that can eliminate targets without the risk of collateral damage.

The British government has not passed a motion to murder thousands of civilians. What they have done is take the first step towards destroying Islamic State. I would be happy for the Union to make a statement condemning air strikes if there had been any kind of well informed debate on the subject or if the motion had passed at a General Assembly, where the opinion of the student body would have been accurately represented. UCLU prides itself on being democratic and representing the values of all students, yet what happened last night wasn’t democracy; it was a sham.