Making the case in spite of himself for a recall of Parliament, Sir Malcolm Rifkind
On
June 29 a new state, an “Islamic caliphate”, was declared in northern Iraq and
Syria.
It may sound like something out of John Buchan’s novel, Greenmantle, which had such a plot, but it cannot be dismissed as fantasy.
Already these jihadi terrorists and their “Islamic State” control a quarter of Iraq and a third of Syria — an area larger than the United Kingdom, with a population of well over five million.
They have already achieved much more than al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden since that terror group’s attacks on the US in 2001.
The immediate issue is the fate of the 50,000 Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar with little food and water and no shelter, as well as 100,000 Iraqi Christians who have fled from their homes.
There is no military value for the jihadis attacking them but such is their fanaticism that they might choose to do so if the refugees descend from the mountain, as they have done in towns and villages they have occupied elsewhere.
It is against this background that the United States is using air strikes, and the British government sending RAF planes with humanitarian supplies for the refugees.
Some MPs are now suggesting that Parliament should be recalled to discuss the Government’s policy. There would be a case for this if Britain was about to embark on a new major war.
Not only is that not the case but the Prime Minister has said that the RAF will not be involved in air strikes or combat action. At most they will defend themselves if attacked while delivering food, shelter and medical aid.
There is no need for the recall of Parliament in such circumstances. There will, in fact, be massive public support for such humanitarian help being given to the Yazidis and to the Iraqi Christian refugees if necessary.
That still leaves the much wider question of whether the international community can tolerate a jihadi terrorist state, not only establishing itself in parts of Iraq and Syria but being used as a springboard to destabilise and seek to control the Middle East as a whole.
That is the jihadis’ objective, and given their extraordinary and unpredicted success in recent weeks, it would be foolish to dismiss further advances by them.
Iraq is already disintegrating, with Kurdish separatists in the north-east and a disaffected and alienated Sunni minority throughout most of the country.
Syria has been economically destroyed by a ruinous civil war and the jihadis are now the most effective and dangerous opponents to the Assad regime in Damascus.
At some stage there will need to be an international response if this threat is to be countered and the jihadi terrorists defeated.
It is highly desirable that their elimination should be brought about by a united and co-ordinated response by the Arab states and other regional powers such as Turkey. It is their future that is most at stake.
After the traumas of the Iraq war and Afghanistan, the US, British and other non-Muslim armies should not get directly involved in the fighting and certainly not with combat forces on the ground.
Three essential steps must now be taken.
First, Iraq needs to choose a new non-sectarian prime minister who can form a genuine government of national unity and begin to win back the support of millions of Iraqi Sunnis, who have been antagonised and marginalised in recent years.
Painfully slowly, this may now be happening in Baghdad.
Second, Saudi Arabia and Qatar must stop the private funding and help that has been given to jihadi extremists by supporters in their countries for several years.
These Arab governments, as well as Egypt, Jordan and a new Iraqi government must develop a joint strategy to defeat the so-called Caliphate, and must be prepared to consider military help to Iraqi forces if that is necessary.
Turkey, for its part, must seal its border with northern Iraq to prevent its territory being used to infiltrate jihadi recruits from Europe and North Africa to swell the terrorists’ forces.
Third, both Arab states and the West must stop compartmentalising the crisis in northern Iraq as if it was separate from the ongoing civil war in Syria.
The reality is that the success of the jihadis is fusing together both crises.
The border between Syria and Iraq, which was created and delineated by Britain and France in 1922, has largely disappeared.
Most of the territory on both sides of that frontier is controlled by the terrorists and their Islamic State has declared the border to have disappeared.
Such is the seriousness of that situation that the international community may have to reassess its relationship with the Assad regime.
The Syrian government has not only greatly strengthened its position in recent months but, sadly, is likely to become an unavoidable partner if the terrorists are to be defeated.
The moderate Syrian opposition have been marginalised partly by their own incompetence and, partly, by the failure of the international community to give them real help at an earlier stage in the Syrian civil war.
The Islamic State is not invincible. Its forces may be not much more than 10,000 strong. Its weaponry is unsophisticated apart from some recently captured from its enemies.
But its organisation is impressive and its fanaticism daunting.
This crisis must not be allowed to develop into a conflict between the Islamic State and the West. That would mean we had learned nothing from previous mistakes.
We must be willing to help. There may need to be, at some stage, a limited military contribution from the US and others.
But the prime responsibility must fall on those for whom the Middle East is their home. It is their future that is most at stake.
It may sound like something out of John Buchan’s novel, Greenmantle, which had such a plot, but it cannot be dismissed as fantasy.
Already these jihadi terrorists and their “Islamic State” control a quarter of Iraq and a third of Syria — an area larger than the United Kingdom, with a population of well over five million.
They have already achieved much more than al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden since that terror group’s attacks on the US in 2001.
The immediate issue is the fate of the 50,000 Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar with little food and water and no shelter, as well as 100,000 Iraqi Christians who have fled from their homes.
There is no military value for the jihadis attacking them but such is their fanaticism that they might choose to do so if the refugees descend from the mountain, as they have done in towns and villages they have occupied elsewhere.
It is against this background that the United States is using air strikes, and the British government sending RAF planes with humanitarian supplies for the refugees.
Some MPs are now suggesting that Parliament should be recalled to discuss the Government’s policy. There would be a case for this if Britain was about to embark on a new major war.
Not only is that not the case but the Prime Minister has said that the RAF will not be involved in air strikes or combat action. At most they will defend themselves if attacked while delivering food, shelter and medical aid.
There is no need for the recall of Parliament in such circumstances. There will, in fact, be massive public support for such humanitarian help being given to the Yazidis and to the Iraqi Christian refugees if necessary.
That still leaves the much wider question of whether the international community can tolerate a jihadi terrorist state, not only establishing itself in parts of Iraq and Syria but being used as a springboard to destabilise and seek to control the Middle East as a whole.
That is the jihadis’ objective, and given their extraordinary and unpredicted success in recent weeks, it would be foolish to dismiss further advances by them.
Iraq is already disintegrating, with Kurdish separatists in the north-east and a disaffected and alienated Sunni minority throughout most of the country.
Syria has been economically destroyed by a ruinous civil war and the jihadis are now the most effective and dangerous opponents to the Assad regime in Damascus.
At some stage there will need to be an international response if this threat is to be countered and the jihadi terrorists defeated.
It is highly desirable that their elimination should be brought about by a united and co-ordinated response by the Arab states and other regional powers such as Turkey. It is their future that is most at stake.
After the traumas of the Iraq war and Afghanistan, the US, British and other non-Muslim armies should not get directly involved in the fighting and certainly not with combat forces on the ground.
Three essential steps must now be taken.
First, Iraq needs to choose a new non-sectarian prime minister who can form a genuine government of national unity and begin to win back the support of millions of Iraqi Sunnis, who have been antagonised and marginalised in recent years.
Painfully slowly, this may now be happening in Baghdad.
Second, Saudi Arabia and Qatar must stop the private funding and help that has been given to jihadi extremists by supporters in their countries for several years.
These Arab governments, as well as Egypt, Jordan and a new Iraqi government must develop a joint strategy to defeat the so-called Caliphate, and must be prepared to consider military help to Iraqi forces if that is necessary.
Turkey, for its part, must seal its border with northern Iraq to prevent its territory being used to infiltrate jihadi recruits from Europe and North Africa to swell the terrorists’ forces.
Third, both Arab states and the West must stop compartmentalising the crisis in northern Iraq as if it was separate from the ongoing civil war in Syria.
The reality is that the success of the jihadis is fusing together both crises.
The border between Syria and Iraq, which was created and delineated by Britain and France in 1922, has largely disappeared.
Most of the territory on both sides of that frontier is controlled by the terrorists and their Islamic State has declared the border to have disappeared.
Such is the seriousness of that situation that the international community may have to reassess its relationship with the Assad regime.
The Syrian government has not only greatly strengthened its position in recent months but, sadly, is likely to become an unavoidable partner if the terrorists are to be defeated.
The moderate Syrian opposition have been marginalised partly by their own incompetence and, partly, by the failure of the international community to give them real help at an earlier stage in the Syrian civil war.
The Islamic State is not invincible. Its forces may be not much more than 10,000 strong. Its weaponry is unsophisticated apart from some recently captured from its enemies.
But its organisation is impressive and its fanaticism daunting.
This crisis must not be allowed to develop into a conflict between the Islamic State and the West. That would mean we had learned nothing from previous mistakes.
We must be willing to help. There may need to be, at some stage, a limited military contribution from the US and others.
But the prime responsibility must fall on those for whom the Middle East is their home. It is their future that is most at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment