Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Refugees on Serbian-Hungarian border
Refugees on Serbian-Hungarian border. ‘The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State in Syria is now acknowledged to have had little impact.' Photograph: Antonio Olmos for the Guardian
Refugees on Serbian-Hungarian border. ‘The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State in Syria is now acknowledged to have had little impact.' Photograph: Antonio Olmos for the Guardian

Should the UK bomb Syria? If we want to make things far worse for everyone

This article is more than 8 years old
Only Syria’s neighbours can act effectively there – and that must be allied with diplomatic efforts, not bombs. But there is no quick fix for the EU’s refugee crisis

Since the start of the refugee crisis the British government has been keen to emphasise the need to tackle the problem at source – in the countries of “origin and transit”. Looking after refugees on arrival would only encourage more to come. This argument was deployed to justify British support for the reduction of search-and-rescue efforts in the Mediterranean last autumn. That particular piece of callousness proved untenable: but the same line is now prominent again, as the government seeks to justify its refusal to help its EU partners deal with the hundreds of thousands of refugees (yes, and migrants) now overwhelming our continental neighbours.

But just because an argument is deployed for cynical purposes does not necessarily make it wrong. On the contrary, in the absence of any one, simple “magic bullet” to fix what is both a massive humanitarian tragedy and a political crisis that is threatening to tear the EU apart, trying to address the root causes of the mass displacement of people must be an essential complement to caring for those who have already made it to Europe.

But bombing in Syria is not the answer. Indeed, it is so obviously a rank idea that the arguments scarcely need to be laid out. In the first place, it will be ineffective. The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria is now widely acknowledged to have had remarkably little impact – beyond strengthening that organisation’s narrative of oppression by “crusaders”, and therefore its recruiting appeal. The idea that a few additional British bombs will make any difference is absurd.

Second, it will endanger British lives (and not just those whom we have now apparently decided that the British state is entitled to kill by drone strike without any judicial process, on the say-so of those intelligence authorities who so memorably gave us Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”). Isis is not about international jihad, like al-Qaida. Its aims are territorial – the establishment of its appalling “caliphate” in the Middle East. But if we want to encourage them to pay more attention to how they can strike at us by acts of terror in the UK, then bombing them is a great way to do it.

Third, the main beneficiary will be Bashar al-Assad (two years ago, of course, it was his regime that was the intended target when last the bombing of Syria was on the agenda): he will be able to use wider western involvement in an air campaign against Isis as vindication of his claim to be a lonely bulwark against what the rest of the world now understands to be the “real” source of all the region’s ills.

Fourth, it will continue to let the regional powers off the hook. Given that the US is not going to commit ground forces to the fight against Isis, only the neighbours can take effective action.

They have the most direct interest; they have easiest access, and the readiest means. The key neighbours in this case are Turkey, Iran and the Saudis and other Gulf states. The only long-term solution to the Isis problem is for those local powers to conclude that their shared interest in destroying Isis outweighs their individual interests in exploiting the current situation in their mutual rivalries. Western assumption of their responsibilities will only delay that day.

So a counterproductive and dangerous military gesture, though no doubt politically useful for a month or two, will do nothing to advance the stability of the region or to alter the circumstances that are driving hundreds of thousands of desperate people across Europe’s borders. What would?

Sadly, there is no quick and easy answer. The challenge is hydra-headed, and the response must be equally multifaceted.

First, more pressure needs to be put on Turkey. This is the biggest “country of transit”. Yet it is neither controlling Isis movements across its border with Syria nor attempting to control the people smugglers operating in Bodrum and Izmir. And its president is more concerned to boost his prospects in the upcoming election by attacking the Kurds than tackling Isis.

Turkey’s prosperity depends on its customs union with the EU. Here is economic leverage that Europe must now exercise.

Second, it is time to engage in some serious diplomacy. Syria is not going to be “fixed” without Russia and Iran. This is unpalatable – but they have more stomach for this fight than does the west. The recent nuclear deal with Iran opens a window of new opportunity.

And last but not least, we must do what we can where we can. Alas, Syria is not the start and finish of the problem. While the migration though Turkey and across the Aegean commands our attention at the moment, the movement out of Africa across the Mediterranean may be an even worse problem in years to come. Africa will, over the next two decades, be home to the world’s last great population explosion – a billion more souls are dependably forecast. So it is of vital interest for Europeans to do everything we can for the continent’s stability and prosperity.

The job is doable: Africa has great natural resources, and despite all the conflict and corruption, has chalked up a steady 5% annual growth over the last decade. But if it is to have a chance of sustaining its burgeoning population it will need all the help that Europe can give it – development, investment, and yes, military assistance in dousing its many conflicts.

A focus on “countries of origin and transit” is indeed needed. But that means a sustained, difficult, expensive, strategic effort, working with EU and other partners. A cheap but counterproductive military gesture is no answer.

Most viewed

Most viewed