Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20130830 : vimar

CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings August 30, 2013

Skepticism. The am most grateful to Prime Minister for giving way. His motion tells me that everything with and it could have been debated on monday. This house has been recalled and i believe it was recalled in order to give cover for possible military action. Has the Prime Minister made it clear to president obama that in no way does this country support in the attack that could come before the u. N. Inspectors have done their job . I called this house to debate issues that are absolutely vital. It is this house that will decide what steps we next take if you agree to the motion i have sat down. No action can be taken until we have heard from the u. N. Weapons inspectors and before there has been another vote in this house. Those are the conditions that we, the british government, the British Parliament, are setting. Lets we let me make a more progress and i will take interventions. This deep public cynicism makes it a particular responsibility on me as a Prime Minister. That is why i wanted parliament recalled. I wanted this debate to bring the country together and not divide it. I included in the government motion all the issues i could that were raised by the leader of the opposition and by many colleagues on all sides of the house because i want us to try to have the greatest possible unity on this issue. I read the opposition motion carefully. It has much to commend it. The importance of the process to the United Nations. Quite right. I believe the motion is decision in two by the respects. Vital respects. The motion does not make it clear that the conditions were caused by chemical weapons. Thend, in no way does opposition motion even begin to point the finger of blame at president assad. That is at odds with what has been said by nato and by the president of the United States. It is at odds with the judgment of the independent Intelligence Committee. It would be the wrong message for this house to send to the world. I will be recommending that my friends vote against it. Mr. Speaker, i thank my right honorable friend for giving way. Can he confirm to the highs that were we to find opposition in the General Assembly and the majority against it in the Security Council, we would not just go along . It would be unthinkable to proceed if there were overwhelming opposition in the Security Council. The best route to follow is to have a chapter 7 resolution, take it to the u. N. Security council, have it passed, and think about taking action. That was the path followed with libya. Thatnnot be the case that is the only way to have a legal basis for action. We should consider what the consequences will be. You could have a situation where the government was annihilating half of the people in that country, but because of one veto on the Security Council, you would be hampered from taking any action. I cannot think of any member of any party of that house who would want to sign up for that. We have the doctrine of humanitarian intervention set out in the attorney generals excellent legal advice to this house. I am grateful to my right honorable friend and i am extremely grateful to him for taking the time to listen to the concerns about further British Military intervention in the middle east. Why is it that our allies in the middle east like saudi arabia, uae, qatar does not do not have the military intervention falling on them . Chemical weapons used by syria that is the only basis i would support action. We need countries that are capable of doing that. One from my honorable friend right here. Did not the u. N. In 2005 sign off on the responsibility to protect . If countries default in their responsibilities to defend their own citizens, the International Community has a responsibility as a whole to defend those citizens. Syria has defaulted on its responsibility to protect its citizens. Tohave a responsibility undertake what we have agreed to do just recently just as recently as 2005. Let me be clear about what we are talking about today. Yes, it is that doctrine. It is also about chemical weapons. It is about a treaty a whole world agreed to. The question before us, is britain the country that wants to uphold that international taboo against the use of chemical weapons . My argument is, yes, it should be that kind of country. The impact we have on decisions today there is a perception of the prepared this to get involved in this conflict before the turn incident. It has an impact on the decisions of the day. The case i am making is the house of commons needs to consider this issue of a massive chemical weapons use by this regime. I am not argue that we should get more involved in this conflict. I am not arguing we should get involved with the rebels. The question before us is, is this 1925 agreement, post world war i do we want to maintain that law . Ofit in britain potion National Interest to maintain an international taboo about the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield . My answer is yes. Britain was parts of drawing up that protocol, which syria signed. Let me take an intervention from the democratic union. There are many people in this house who do not believe this is a prelude to actions that will see us involved in syria. There have already been 14 instances of the use of chemical weapons. 100,000 people dead. Why is it only now that the Prime Minister thinks this is the time for greater intervention . The point for considering this tougher approach is we know there are 14 uses of chemical weapons. Now we have this much larger use. This does seem to me and to president obama and to many others that it is time to do something to stand up on the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. You cannot accuse me of rushing into something and on the other hand ask me why i have waited after 14 chemical weapons attacks to do something . I want to explain what we know. I want to set out the paths we will follow. Let me try to make some progress. That we set out what we know about what happened. In three hours on the morning of 21 august, three hospitals in the damascus area received 3600 patients with systems symptoms consistent with a chemical attack. It was some of the most sickening human suffering of mail imaginable. There was no way this could not have been Chemical Attacks, particularly in the behavior of small children. It seemed to be nerve agent exposure. Anyone in this chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them. You can never forget the sight of childrens bodies stored in ice. Young men and women gasping for air and suffering agonizing deaths. The Syrian Regime has publicly admitted they were conducting a major operation in the area at that time. The regime resisted calls for unrestricted access for u. N. Inspectors, while rocket fire in the area reached a level of around four times higher than the preceding 10 days. The forces took precautions normally associated with chemical weapons use. The joint Intelligence Committee has made its judgment. It has done so in line with the reforms put in place after the iraq war by sir robin butler. There was a letter that states, there is little serious dispute that the Chemical Attacks causing mass cavities on a large scale took place on 21 august. There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claim of the possession of chemical weapons by the opposition. It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out chemical weapons attack on this scale. The regime has used chemical weapons on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian Regime was responsible. The chairman makes this point absolutely clear. There are no plausible alternative scenarios for regime responsibility. I am not say that some piece of intelligence i have seen that the world will not see convinces me that i am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. This is a judgment. We all have to reach a judgment about what happened and who is responsible. From all the evidence we have, the fact that the opposition does not have chemical weapons and the regime does, the fact that they have used them and they were attacking the air at the time, that is enough to conclude the regime is responsible and should be held responses. I am grateful to the Prime Minister. What has convinced him . What is the evidence that an action by the International Community 100,000 dead. Millions of refugees, continuing action, which is totally destroyed in that country. What is the evidence that convinces them . Convinces him . There is no 100 certainty about who is responsible. There is no 100 certainty of what about what action might succeed or fail. When we have a regime that has used chemical weapons on 14 occasions and is most likely responsible for this large scale attack, if nothing is done, it will conclude it can use these weapons again and again and on a larger scale and with impunity. Talk about escalation. The biggest danger of escalation is if the world community, not just britain, but america and others, stands back and does nothing. MakingPrime Minister is a very pro full and a heartfelt speech. Powerful and heartfelt speech. There seems to be no logic to this chemical attack. If he reads the conclusion, this is where they find the greatest difficulty of ascribing militants. Been of motives have ascribed. The most likely possibility is that he has been testing the boundaries. Theants to know whether world will respond to the use of these weapons, which i suspect are proving quite effective on the battlefield. We cannot know the mind of this brutal dictator. All we can do is make a judgment about whether it will be better to act or not to act. Does he know if there were any plans for military action before next week . I honestly cannot discuss the details of potato action in detail in front of this house. The american president and i have had discussions reported in the newspaper about potential military action. We have had those discussions. The american president would like to have allies alongside the United States with capability and with the partnership that britain and america has. Britainut clearly what would need to see happen for us to take part in that. More action from the u. N. , a report from inspectors. It will be decided by this government and by votes in this house of commons. I agree with the Prime Minister with the on the floor of chemical weapons. Horror of chemical weapons. Can he convince the house that military action by our country would shorten the civil war, help harold in a postwar government . Herald in a postwar government . I cannot make those decisions. It would have to be action that is about determine the future use of chemical weapons. In the story. If we were aware of largescale use of chemical weapons by the opposition, i would be making the same argument and the making the same recommendations. I am grateful to my honorable friend for supporting britains tradition. We have always stood against mass murder. Does my friend not agree that there is a humanitarian case for intervention, especially after what happened in 1988 when 5000 kurds were killed with mustard gas . I applaud my friend for standing up against mass murder wherever it occurs. Speechesd part of my to deal with the actions. Speech is to deal with the actions. There should be no disagreement that the use of chemical weapons is wrong. The world came together to agree on the 1925 treaty and to outlaw the use of chemical weapons. There was a determination that the events of that war should never be repeated. Whatever happens, these weapons should never been used. President assad has crossed that line and there should be consequences. Taken together with the previous 14 smallscale attacks, it is the only instance of regular and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by a state. Interfering in another countrys unfair should not be undertaken except in the most exceptional circumstances. It should be a humanitarian catastrophe and a last resort. This is a humanitarian catastrophe. If there are no consequences, there is nothing to stop president assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again. Doing nothing is a choice. It is a choice with consequences. These consequences would not just be about president assad and his future use of chemical weapons. Decades of painstaking work to construct an International System of rules and checks to prevent the use of chemical weapons and story stockpiles would be undone. A 100 year taboo would be breached. People ask about the british National Interest. Is it not in the british National Interest the rules about chemical weapons should be of help . In my view, it is. Notwithstanding the timing and approach to conflict, can i bring up the issue of consequences . Whomever is is possible for the chemical weapons attack should know that they will face a court, whether it is the International Criminal court or a war crimes tribunal in the future. Whether there is intervention or not, somebody is responsible for a heinous crime and they should face the law. I certainly agree that people should be subject to an International Criminal court. The use of criminal chemical weapons is a crime and should be prosecuted. Syria is not a signatory to that treaty. That me make a little more progress and i will give way. I have consulted the attorney general. He has confirmed the use of chemical weapons in syria. I want to be clear about the process we followed. The weapons investigators in damascus should complete their work. They should brief the United Nations Security Council. There should be a resolution backing all necessary measures. Then and only then should we have a vote in this house backing military action. I do not need to repeat that again. I would urge my colleagues to read this advice, which i put in the library at the house of commons. That we keep one more time let me repeat one more time, we have not made a decision to act. If there would be a decision to act, this advice would be legal. Would he agree that our constituents across the house are concerned with becoming involved in another middle eastern conflicts. He is speaking specifically on the war crimes use of chemical weapons. From a different matter britain being involved in a middle eastern war. I completely agree with my right honorable friend. There is wariness in our country linked to the fact that people have difficult Economic Times to deal with. They are asking questions about why britain has to do so much in the world. We should reassure our constituents by saying this is about chemical weapons. This is not about intervention. This is not about getting involved in another middle east war. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said a moment ago in the hearing of the house that one of the purposes of any action is great thing of the chemical weapons capabilities of the president assad regime. It would involve hundreds of ships and aircraft and hundreds of thousands thousands of ground troops. What would his objective be in grading the chemical weapons capability . Referring to them as my constituents is a take away. [laughter] he makes a very good point, which is what i think the letter was addressing. If you wanted to dismantle syrias weapons arsenal, that would be an enormous undertaking. That is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed, were we to take part, is an attempt to deter and degrade the future use of. Listnot want to set out a of targets. It would be perfectly simple and straightforward to think of actions you could take to control the use of chemical weapons and the people and buildings involved in that, which would be tar sand degrade. How can we be certain any action will work . Deter and degrade. If nothing is done, we are more likely to see more chemical weapons used. Grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. The joint Intelligence Committee says the motivation says they have a limited, but growing body of intelligence that says the regime was responsible. Ministerate the prime cannot share such information with the house as a whole. The Security Committee has top secret clearance to look precisely at this sort of material. As members of the committee, would he be member willing for members of the committee to see that material . I am happy to consider that request. The Intelligence Committee plays an important role. I did not want to raise the status of individual groups and pieces of intelligence into some quasireligious cult. There is an enormous amount of open source reporting. There are an enormous amount of videos we can see. The fact that they were attacking that area and the fact that they the opposition does not have those weapons or those delivery systems. Yes, of course intelligence is part of this picture. Lets not pretend there is one smoking piece of intelligence. This is a judgment issue and one in which honorable members will have to make a judgment. The reason many of us in parliament opposed the farming of the rebels was that there were atrocities committed opposed the arming of the rebels was that there were atrocities committed by both sides. There was a real risk that the violence would escalate. By this would be escalated within the country and on the syrian border. I have not agreed on every aspect of syrian policy. That is well known. If we were to take action, it would be about degrading and deterring chemical weapons use. The greatest form of escalations we have in front of us is the danger of additional chemical weapons use. This debate, this issue is not about farming arming the rebels. It is about chemical

© 2025 Vimarsana