英國下議院為敘利亞介入進行了兩次緊急辯論，每場歷時三小時，反映了西方議會民主的水平，因而對民主政治的認識十分重要。
議會民主
力量對比
這辯論雖然是由一位工黨議員Alison McGovern (Wirral
South) (Lab)提出，但工黨和保守黨都不挑戰空襲本身。
蘇格蘭民族黨立場
我想集中討論「英國國會面對的兩難」。 我們在星期六的軍事行動並沒有帶來好的國際秩序，而只是益了克里姆林宮。英國政府似乎不重視安理會的集體決定，這一雖然小但顯著的偽善，只會令普京高興得搓手。他在俄羅斯國內、互聯網和反戰集會中將英國的偽善無限放大，愚弄無知的人相信俄羅斯版本。
英國從1972年開始已經不在聯合國安理會運用否決權，但腐敗的俄羅斯在東歐和高加索，中國在北韓和緬甸議題上濫用其否決權。
因此，必須回答的問題是：“鑑於否決權制度似乎已經破壞了安理會的效能，英國政府會否建議修改聯合國安理會的結構和程序？ 從2016年開始，英國的新外交政策已被證明是愚蠢的，再做多次是無可饒恕的。
近年的兩次公投看到，英國只對其舊帝國自戀，英國擁有優良的議會民主同樣地是自欺欺人。
脫歐令我們矮化，讓安理會放任中俄令我們進一步被矮化！”
他投了反對票。
首相發言
一：繼2013年8月在大馬士革東部發生沙林襲擊事件之後，敘利亞政權承諾拆除其化學武器計劃，俄羅斯承諾確保敘利亞在禁化武組織監督下做到這一點。但五年多後，敘利亞沒有拆除其化學武器計劃，俄羅斯的擔保沒有價值。事實上，禁化武組織總幹事上個月報告，敘利亞沒有回應22個嚴重指責。這包括隱瞞今次被炸的三個化武據點。自2014年設立實地調查團以來，禁化武組織在敘利亞找到了390多項化學武器攻擊。
禁化武組織聯合國聯合調查機制發現，2014年至2017年期間，敘利亞政府有四次使用化學武器，包括2014年4月在塔拉梅內斯，2015年3月在Sarmin和Qamenas--均涉及使用氯氣-
並在Khan
Shaykhun去年4月4日，政府軍使用沙林殺死大約100人，另有500人傷亡。單靠外交行動不能緩解化學武器在這些案件中造成的人道主義痛苦。它並沒有阻止4月7日杜馬的暴行，也不能阻止未來的化學武器襲擊。
(筆者按：文翠珊指控敘利亞政府軍濫用化武的表面證供成立。而歐盟外交政策與安全事務高級代表、歐盟委員會副主席費德麗卡-莫蓋裡尼關在14/04/2018急急發表聲明，表示：“由歐盟和聯合國共同主持的第二屆布魯塞爾敘利亞問題會議將於2018年4月24日至25日舉行，這將是整個國際社會對重啟政治進程的一貫支援，並幫助這場持續衝突的主要受害者，即敘利亞境內外的敘利亞人民的機會。”這等於擔心蝕底，快些到內戰後的敘利亞分一口羹。從好的角度看，這合理，因為敘利亞難民湧入歐洲是現實政治，從壞心眼的角度看，這些可耻的國家行為，小市民要忍受的，好比小市民到外吃東西，要接受吃壞肚子的可能，不能太天真。)
2. 行動是否有用
文翠珊回應英國政黨最關注的事，周末行動是否有用。文翠珊表示：“我的答案是否。我們的行動具體而確切。 這一行動不是干涉內戰，不是為了政權更替。 我們不計劃長期的軍事行動;
我們採取的行動是有限和有針對性的。 這完全是為了減輕敘利亞進一步的人道主義痛苦，這是由於化學武器襲擊造成的。行動打擊了敘利亞政權使用化學武器的能力。 所以這是一次有限的，有針對性和有效的攻擊。其界線明確，力求避免升級，並儘一切可能防止平民傷亡。
(筆者按：由於政府軍已收復了大部份失地，因而其使用化武的需要減少，由此文翠珊的聲稱不成立。)
俄國阻撓
文翠珊力數俄國阻撓安理會的和平努力。
1.
去年2月28日，俄羅斯否決了制裁敘利亞使用化學武器的決議。
2.
4月12日，俄羅斯否決了一項譴責敘利亞使用化學武器的決議，該決議呼籲該政權與調查合作。
3.
10月24日，俄羅斯否決了恢復調查在敘利亞使用化學武器的特派團任務的決議。
4.
11月16日，俄羅斯否決了要求對敘利亞化學武器襲擊的國際調查決議。
5.
11月17日，俄羅斯否決了延長聯合調查機制調查一個月的決議。
6.
今年4月10日，俄羅斯否決了通過獨立機制調查確定敘利亞使用化學武器責任的決議。
俄羅斯的行為意味著僅僅依靠聯合國安理會就等於接受不用對這些化學武器襲擊敘利亞無辜平民採取行動。正如尊貴的國會議員Aberavon
(Stephen Kinnock)指出，依靠這一點意味著將我們的外交政策否決給俄羅斯，這不是我們願意接受的。
(筆者按：俄羅斯6度否決安理會決議，說明安理會已成了中俄的玩野地方，文翠珊的指責成立。普京是百份百人渣。)
文翠珊以“國際社會在這一點上一起阻止使用化學武器。 這個週末，英國，法國和美國向那些試圖破壞國際規則的人發出了一個明確的信息：停下來，停下來。”作結。
(筆者按：週末行動明顯地阻嚇人渣政權(那怕是敘利亞或敘利亞以外在未來使用化武，因此，文翠珊的論斷不成立。)
結語
考察了今次英國國會辯論，可總結為低水準。它引申幾點讓世人深思：
一，文明是否走向盡頭。Civilization and Its
Discontents by Sigmund Freud.
二，激進的民間力量是否無法進入西方議會，及其缺席對日趨緊張的世界秩序的影響為何？
三，資本會否帶來世界和平和有序？
四，巡航導彈太有效、太方便、對使用國的軍事人員太安全，它會否在長遠而言，鬆懈了大國領導人的芥心，做成濫用，或甚至用在非軍事目標？
@@@@@@@@@@@@
備註
註一
後座議員（英語：Backbencher）是西敏制國會坐在議會後座的普通議員。後座議員並非執政黨內閣成員，亦不是在野黨的領袖、發言人或影子內閣成員（因他們已佔據前座，故稱前座議員）。後座議員通常是新當選或委任的議員，或已從政府退休的議員。
由於並非內閣成員或黨內重要人物，後座議員在國會的地位及影響力稍低。但他們可透過參與國會各個委員會，滲入各範疇的立法程序。而且後座議員通常佔據國會多席議席，集體行動下足以左右不受歡迎的政策推行或避免執政黨內部分裂。
註二
7.58 pm
a Member of Parliament who does not hold office in the
government or opposition and who sits behind the front benches in the House of
Commons.
Share this
contribution
I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific
and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the current
situation in Syria and the UK Government’s approach.
The need for this debate first arose last week, during
recess. As we know, on Saturday 7 April, two incidents were reported of bombs
filled with toxic chemicals being dropped on Douma in Syria. The hon. Member for
Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and I agreed during the recess that, on
the House’s return, we would seek an emergency opportunity for the House to
discuss the atrocity. The need for such a debate is all the stronger now, given
the Government’s action in response. Members will have different views on the
Government’s action. However, whatever their view, it is pretty clear that the
House ought to have the opportunity to debate the matter.
On the basis of that principle, and no other, I have been pleased
to receive support for this SO24 application from the following Members: the
right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the
House; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham
(Ms Harman), the Mother of the House; the right hon. Member for New Forest East
(Dr Lewis); my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford (Yvette Cooper); the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, as I
mentioned earlier; the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell); my
hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty); and a
whole host of Back Benchers who hold various different views on the situation
in Syria and what the Government’s actions ought to be but none the less agree
that we ought to discuss it in this House, whatever the Government’s attitude
to process in Parliament. To quote the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield
in a previous debate:
“In a hung Parliament, political power
tends to pass from the Cabinet Room to the Floor of this House”.—[Official
Report, 21 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 109.]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
註三
Share this contribution
I am grateful to
the hon. Lady, to whose application I have listened carefully. Colleagues, I am
satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order
No. 24. Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House?
Application agreed
to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).
Mr Speaker
Share this contribution
Very clearly, the
hon. Lady does have the leave of the House, and to her debate, colleagues, you
will be pleased to know, we will proceed momentarily. That debate will take
place today for up to three hours.
Before I invite the
hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to move her motion, it might
perhaps be helpful if I explain the timing. Standing Orders do not expressly
provide that a debate granted under Standing Order No. 24 is exempt from
interruption at 10 o’clock on a Monday. They do, however, allow for business
delayed as a result of such a debate to have injury time, 補時階段if
necessary beyond the moment of interruption at 10 o’clock. I have taken advice
and benefited from the contents of the scholarly cranium of the Clerk of the
House. On the strength of that, I am ruling that the debate can continue
despite the moment of interruption because I am interpreting the power given to
me under subsection (2) of Standing Order No. 24 to determine the length of a
debate as embracing the power to permit the debate to continue beyond the
moment of interruption. It will therefore continue for up to three hours. We
now come to that emergency debate on the current situation in Syria and the UK
Government’s approach.
註四
I will not give way at the moment.
First, on getting aid in, medical supplies are desperately
needed. I have been hearing from professionals in the region who are trying to
help to save lives, and Assad’s tactic has been simply to block them. We have
the resources, and we have supplies in Jordan. We have to focus on getting
medical supplies and other forms of necessary aid into the places where people
are besieged. I will return to that in a moment.
I want to highlight the pledging conference coming up in
Brussels shortly, which the Prime Minister mentioned. I am pleased that there
is an overwhelming majority in the House in favour of our aid budget. Given
that support, all we ask is that the Prime Minister makes the best possible use
of the aid budget for people in Syria.
Secondly, on getting people out, the tactic of Assad and his
regime has been to direct civilians to a concentrated area and to group them
together, saying that that will make them safe, and then to attack them. It is
a bitter falsehood to say to people, “We’re going to shift you out of here to
make sure that you’re safe,” before later coming back to attack them. We need
to help to mount a rescue, and that means searching for the people who humanitarian
organisations know are the most injured, as well as disabled children, and
helping to get them out of there.
Thirdly, we ought to deter further violence. I caution
everyone in the House against engaging in the behaviour of an armchair general.
We should not be coming up with military solutions off the top of our head, but
that does not mean we should not use the skill of our armed forces or that we
should not say to our military advisers, “Look at the different groups of
people in Syria, be they besieged or attacked, and give us a strategy to help
each and every one of them. Tell us what we can do to deter further violence.”
It is not just chemical weapons that people are facing there. Barrel bombs
ought not to be dropped on children’s heads—it is as simple as that. If we
cannot get the best advice on how we can deter that, I am not sure what we are
for.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Alison McGovern
I will give way in a moment, but I will come back to others
first.
In addition, surveillance and reconnaissance assets can
conduct monitoring and reporting of attacks against civilians. The UK and its
coalition partners should be providing protection and support to the UN. It is
within the coalition’s gift to establish a favourable air situation so that we
can ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid. We have to get the right
supplies in, and I simply ask the Government to go back and find what more they
can do to open humanitarian corridors and get aid in.
As a guarantor of the rules-based international order, the
Government must now ask all parties to the conflict to permit the unrestricted
delivery and distribution of that aid. This has to be put in as simple and
stark terms as possible. We have to articulate what we see as the next stage
for accountability and whether there is a role for other routes through the UN
and the International Criminal Court. The Government ought to say what they
think now. The French Government recently made a number of suggestions, and I
ask the Government to look at those and work with the French to see what can be
done.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and
congratulate her on the case she is making. Like all hon. Members, I have had
contact over the last few days from constituents who are very concerned about
the plight of the Syrian people. Does she agree that what she is describing is
not the kind of one-off event that occurred over the weekend, for reasons that
I understand—immediately to degrade chemical weapons—but a long-term and
sustained diplomatic, political and, if necessary, military response? Part of
that must be a communications strategy to ensure that the public in this
country and more widely understand what we are seeking to achieve?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes an important and wise point, as she
does normally.
We have been coming back to this place after each horrific
event and asking ourselves, “How did we let this happen?” Let this time be
different. Let this be the moment when we decide to take a long-term view and
bring together all the best efforts of everybody in Britain to secure peace.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, particularly about
the importance of aid. What does she think should be done to ensure that other
countries follow the UK in standing by their responsibilities to deliver aid to
Syria?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As someone
who fought the battle to get a Bill through Parliament to guarantee the aid of
this country, I would happily talk to parliamentarians in other countries about
what they ought to do, but this debate is not about what others should do. Our
Prime Minister is here, and my focus is on what she can do and what our country
can do to try to assist vulnerable Syrians.
Fourthly, we need to defund Assad. Unfortunately, Syria has
still managed to function as an economic actor in the world, but that cannot be
right. It cannot be okay that business goes on as normal in the face of such
brutality and inhumane actions by that country’s Government. I ask the Prime
Minister to investigate what actions we can take to remove Syria from the SWIFT
system, which provides for international financial transactions. That would
send a strong signal that we are no longer prepared to tolerate Syria just
going on as normal. It has involvement in a number of forums around the world,
and we must go through each one and remove Syria. We need to send a message
that the Syrian Government are beyond the pale and that their actions prove
that they can no longer be treated as a normal member of the international
community in any sphere of life, especially economically.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
One thing that has been absent from these debates—whether we
are talking about Iraq, Libya or Syria—is that what would offer the people of
Syria a lot of hope is a reconstruction plan for after we achieve peace in
Syria. That has always been absent from the Government’s thinking.
Alison McGovern
At some point, Syria must be rebuilt, but right now the
bombs are falling. We ought not to have an idea that we can somehow put money
into Syria and that will make it better, because my argument is actually the
opposite: that would make it worse. My hon. Friend is right, however, in the
sense that we have to work with Syrians—especially those in this country, and
all those who are our constituents—and talk to them about the kind of vision
they have for Syria post conflict. I will come on to the precise point he
mentioned in a moment.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work not just on
this, but, like all its members, on the all-party friends of Syria group. Does
she agree that, in relation to Russia and finance, the UK could look at taking
a similar approach to that of the US towards oligarchs? The rouble actually
dropped 30% 10 days ago because of measures that the Trump Government brought
in. Does she think that such an approach would be relevant, to apply financial
pressure on Russia?
Alison McGovern
I do. My hon. Friend pre-empts me, and she is quite right.
In my view, the sanctions we have currently levied against Syria and its
backers are insufficient. She is no longer in her place, but the Chair of the Treasury
Committee, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), spoke very
well earlier about the need to look again at this situation and to consider
secondary sanctions to reach those who trade with those trading with Syria and
its backers. I am pleased that the Treasury Committee is going to investigate
this matter in detail.
Fifthly and finally, we have to demonstrate our commitments
to the victims of this war. We now have a large number of Syrians—people from
Syria who were here before the conflict and those who have come in since—who
form part of our UK society. I really think we ought to listen to and work with
them and that we should build up another track of peace building. We know that
the Geneva talks have stalled and that the Astana process is not going to
produce what we would see as an answer, so why do we not learn the lessons of
Northern Ireland and recognise that peace needs to involve not just the warring
parties but all those with a stake in Syrian society? Why can we not reach out
across Syrian civil society and have a British-led effort to consult those
impacted by the war and who hold no power but may do so in the future? I really
believe that in working with Syrian civil society, most especially women, we
would find some of the answers to peace. That will not come immediately or
straightaway, but by doing such early work, we could put in train a better
Syria for the future.
註五
Conservative 316
Labour 259
Scottish National
Party 35
Liberal Democrat 12
Democratic Unionist
Party 10
Sinn Féin 6
Independent 5
Plaid Cymru 4
Green Party 1
Speaker 1
Vacant 1
Total number of
seats 650
註六
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison
McGovern) on securing this debate.
I, like many, am horrified by the Assad regime’s actions
against its own people. It is beyond belief that any regime would use
conventional weapons, let alone chemical weapons, against civilians, and I would
expect any Government to condemn the regime and take action. The UK has the
capability and the world standing to act for those who cannot. The Prime
Minister has the heavy burden of judging the security assessments and making
decisions to act in defence of the British people or to act on humanitarian
grounds.
It therefore disappointed me that the First Minister, Nicola
Sturgeon, chose to describe the action in Syria as “a macho strongman
stand-off.”
敘利亞的行動是“男權主義的強人對峙”。
I am proud that we
have a United Kingdom Prime Minister who can take the difficult ultimate
decisions, because to ignore the use of chemical weapons is to encourage their
use, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)
made clear. If the SNP is waiting for the UN, it is clear that Russia will
block it. If it is waiting for absolute proof, how? Again, the Russians and the
Assad regime will block it.
This is important because it is now that we should stand
shoulder to shoulder and show leadership. The hon. Member for Wirral South
spoke passionately about the suffering, and we must stop the atrocities. We
must act to defend international law. It is more likely that the Assad regime
will take notice if the protection of its Russian overlords is undermined.
The precision of the proportionate response has demonstrated
to Assad and his forces that they are not beyond the reach of international
action, and I ask hon. Members here and in Holyrood to show leadership and to
recognise that we can achieve our humanitarian aid ambitions, as the hon. Lady
said, only if we take action. I implore the Prime Minister to take action if
intelligence shows it is needed.
To argue for no action is to turn a blind eye to a far-off
atrocity. We cannot say, “This is not our country and not our cause.” This is
chemical weapons, this is a war crime and this is our cause.
註七
9.46 pm
Share this contribution
I want to focus on
what I would like to call the Westminster paradox. While there are those who
have taken the view that the something that must be done was the something done
at the weekend, I cannot help but draw the conclusion that instead of
reasserting the very best of the international rules-based system, we have set
a precedent for an unfortunate and disturbing new normal that will be far more
to the liking of those in the Kremlin than they would want.
我想集中討論我想稱之為威斯敏斯特的悖論。 雖然有些人認為必須完成的事情是周末完成的事情，但我不得不得出這樣一個結論，即我們不是重申最好的國際規則為基礎的製度，而是製定了一個 一個不幸和令人不安的新常態的先例，將會更多地克服克里姆林宮的人的喜好。
It is important for
all Members to recognise the difficulty that the Prime Minister faced last
week. While I may not agree with the decision, I think every Member of the
House should reflect on it. It was a difficult decision to make, as I think
every Member recognises.
Nevertheless, I
disagree with the answer the Prime Minister gave me earlier, which was that by
asking that the United Nations is respected, we somehow give the Russian
state—specifically the Russian regime—a veto on UK foreign policy. It seems
that it is now United Kingdom Government policy that United Nations Security
Council vetoes are no longer binding on the UK. That seems to be the precedent
the UK Government are setting. Whether we like it or not, Vladimir Putin will
be rubbing his hands at this small yet significant hypocrisy—magnified a
thousandfold on Russia Today, in internet memes and in Stop the War coalition
whataboutery—which contains just enough of a grain of truth to be accepted by
the many who believe such things all too easily.
英國政府似乎正在做成先例。 無論我們喜不喜歡，普京都高興得搓手，抓住這一小但顯著的虛偽不放，在俄羅斯、互聯網和反戰集會中無限放大，它當中的小小道理 足以讓許多人輕信俄羅斯的解說。
We know that the
United Kingdom has not used its Security Council veto unilaterally since
September 1972. It was, of all things, on a colonial legacy issue about the
place formerly known as Rhodesia, and I am sure that the Government would not
like to be reminded about that during this week of all weeks. Why does the
United Kingdom have this veto? Many people have noticed the precedent that has
been set. I do not doubt that the corrupt regime in Moscow will stop at nothing
to prop up the wicked regime in Damascus. Equally, it will do so in relation to
the various slivers of eastern Europe and the Caucasus that it has occupied,
while China will supposedly do so in relation to North Korea or Burma.
So—this is a
specific question that requires an answer—do the Government have any
substantive policy suggestions for the structure and procedures of the United
Nations Security Council now that it would seem that veto powers have ceased to
work? To embark on a brave new world of UK foreign policy once since 2016 was
foolish; to do so twice would be indescribable.
在聯合國安理會，英國從1972年已不運用其否決權；腐敗的俄國政權在東歐和高加索，中國在北韓和緬甸議題上濫用其否決權。
因此，必須回答的問題是：“鑑於否決權制度似乎已經破壞了安理會的效能，英國政府會否建議修改聯合國安理會的結構和程序？ 從2016年開始，英國的新外交政策已被證明是愚蠢的，再做多次是無可饒恕的。
Let us get to the
final point of the Westminster paradox. Over the course of the two referendums
we have had on these islands in recent years, it would be fair to say we have
been given the impression, particularly by Government Members, that the UK’s
position on the Security Council was one of great responsibility and power that
gave us immense privileges and, secondly, that it was derived in part from the
status of this place as a cradle of liberal parliamentary democracy—something
that should be restored to a supposed former glory. I fear that, in the same
period in which they have diminished themselves by being about to leave the
European Union, this Government have diminished the United Kingdom yet further
by laying dynamite under the foundations of the international rules-based
system that it did so much to create.
讓我再指出英國國會的兩難。經歷了近年的兩次公投，可以公道地指責，政府對安理會承擔了責任，英國從中得到尊重是舊帝國的自戀想法，英國擁有優良的議會民主同樣地是自欺欺人。
我擔心，脫歐令我們矮化；安理會中的計時炸彈令我們進一步被矮化！
註八
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South
(Alison McGovern) for securing the debate—I congratulate her on doing so. I
welcomed her powerful contribution, which included her support for the action
that we have taken. Nobody can doubt the passion with which she spoke about
this subject. She has shown care, concern and compassion for Syrian refugees in
many of her contributions in this House.
The persistent and abhorrent use of chemical weapons by the
Assad regime cannot go unanswered. It is in our national interest to prevent
the further use of these weapons in Syria, and to uphold and defend the global
consensus that these weapons should never, ever be used.
Although I recognise that there are some issues on which
there have been disagreements this evening, I welcome the widespread revulsion
of this House over the use of chemical weapons, whether in Syria, on the
streets of the UK, or elsewhere in the world. I welcome, too, the universal
admiration and support that has been expressed today for the remarkable men and
women in our armed forces. They once again put their lives on the line to serve
this country, and their bravery and professionalism was essential to the
success of this mission.
外交
I would like to address head-on some of the most critical
questions that have been posed about the military action that was taken. First, there was the question of whether we should have just
tried harder at diplomacy. Together with our international partners, we
have tried time and time again to use diplomatic channels to prevent the Assad
regime from using chemical weapons against its people. The chemical weapons
convention, UN Security Council resolutions and decisions of the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons executive council all require Syria to
produce a comprehensive declaration of its chemical weapons programme.
Following the sarin attack in eastern Damascus back in
August 2013, the Syrian regime even committed to dismantle its chemical weapons
programme, and Russia promised to ensure that Syria did this, overseen by the
OPCW. The Leader of the Opposition referred to action that was taken, but more
than five years later, the reality is that Syria did not dismantle its chemical
weapons programme and the Russian guarantee had no value. Indeed, the director
general of the OPCW reported just last month that Syria had not provided
credible evidence to account for 22 serious issues. This includes agents
present at facilities that have not been declared and types of chemical warfare
agent that Syria has not declared at all. Furthermore, the OPCW has recorded
more than 390 allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria since its
fact-finding mission was established in 2014.
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. Relying on diplomatic action alone has failed to alleviate the
humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons in each of these cases. It
did not prevent the atrocity in Douma on 7 April, and it would not prevent
future chemical weapons attacks either.
I remind the House that, as a number of right hon. and hon.
Members have said, inaction is not an option—my hon. Friend the Member for
Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made that very clear. My right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that inaction would have led to more
significant chemical attacks. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary
Benn), who I think we all recall making a passionate speech in this House on
the issue of action in Syria in 2015, said that selective silence in the face
of brutality is not a principle and is not a policy.
好心做壞事
Let me address one of the biggest concerns that I know many
people had in advance of the decision to take this military action in Syria:
would such action make things worse? I was clear that the answer is no, but
only because of the specific and precise nature of the intervention that we
have made. This action was not about intervening in a civil war and it was not
about regime change. Neither have we begun a long military campaign; the action
that we have taken was limited and targeted. It was purely about alleviating
further humanitarian suffering in Syria caused by chemical weapons attacks by
degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring the use
of these weapons in Syria and beyond. So this was a limited, targeted and effective strike with clear boundaries that
expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent
civilian casualties.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Did the prospect of a retaliation of a cyber nature from the
Government of Russia feature in the Prime Minister’s calculation?
The Prime Minister
As I said during my statement, of course, when we were
considering taking this action, we considered a whole variety of ways in which
it might be possible that there was reaction, but as I also said in response to
a number of hon. Members, we ensured that we took the action in a way that
reduced the risk of escalation taking place. As I have said, the way we did
this expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent
civilian casualties. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about the possibility
of Russian cyber-attacks, he does not have to wait for us to take action in
Syria for Russia to get involved in cyber-attacks on this country or, indeed,
on many other countries.
Together with our allies, we have hit a centre for the
research and development of Syria’s chemical and biological programme, we have
hit a chemical weapons bunker, which contained both a chemical weapons
equipment storage facility and an important command post, and we have hit a
location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment whose destruction
would degrade Syria’s ability to deliver sarin in the future. Hitting these
targets with the force we have used will not have a negative impact on the
already complex situation in Syria. What it will do is significantly degrade
the Syrian regime’s ability and willingness to research, develop and deploy
chemical weapons. That is a good thing for the Syrian people and for the
security of the wider world.
As we consider our action, we should recognise the role that
Russia has played in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and
Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) brought home to the House the reality of
Russian activity. We should recognise not only the support being given to the
Assad regime by Russia but also Russia’s actions in the United Nations. I want
to set out what has happened to the recent resolutions that we and our
international partners have tried to secure to constrain the chemical weapons
use of the Syrian regime.
俄國阻撓
On 28 February last year, a resolution to impose sanctions
on Syria for the use of chemical weapons was vetoed by Russia. On 12 April, a
resolution to condemn the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria calling on
the regime to co-operate with an investigation was vetoed by Russia. On 24
October, a resolution to renew the mandate of the mission that investigates the
use of chemical weapons in Syria was vetoed by Russia. On 16 November, a
resolution to renew an international inquiry into who is to blame for chemical
weapons attacks in Syria was vetoed by Russia. On 17 November, a resolution to
extend the joint investigative mechanism inquiry for one month was vetoed by
Russia.
On 10 April this year, a resolution to establish an
independent mechanism investigation to attribute responsibility for chemical
weapons use in Syria was vetoed by Russia. Russia’s behaviour means that
relying solely on the United Nations Security Council is tantamount to
accepting that no action should be taken in response to these chemical weapons
attacks on innocent civilians in Syria. As the hon. Member for Aberavon
(Stephen Kinnock) pointed out, relying on that would mean giving the veto on
our foreign policy to Russia, and that is not something that we are willing to
accept.
I just want to mention one issue about which the hon. Member
for Wirral South spoke particularly passionately, as she has done
previously—that of refugees. She welcomed and valued the aid that we have
given. I continue to believe that it is important that we are providing this
significant amount of support in the region as the second-biggest bilateral
donor. We have been able to provide healthcare, educational and other support
to hundreds of thousands of children in Syria and the surrounding countries for
the same investment that it would take to support 3,000 unaccompanied
asylum-seeking children here in the United Kingdom.
These are not easy decisions to take, but it is right to get
a balance of support in the region, which enables us to give more support to
more people and more children, and at the same time to bring here those who are
particularly vulnerable and in need. The hon. Lady is right: while the military
action was focused on degrading chemical weapons, we need that wider effort in
terms of resolving the conflict in Syria, dealing with Daesh and continuing to
press for action in the Geneva process.
This year, we mark the centenary of the end of the first
world war, brought home to us starkly this evening by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). The international community
came together at that point to stop the use of chemical weapons. This weekend
Britain, France and America sent a clear message to those who seek to rip up
the international rulebook: stop, and stop now.
註九
歐盟外交政策與安全事務
歐盟外交政策與安全事務高級代表、歐盟委員會副主席費德麗卡-莫蓋裡尼關於敘利亞空襲的聲明
布魯塞爾, 14/04/2018
歐盟重申其對敘利亞政權一再使用化學武器的強烈譴責，正如禁止化學武器組織與聯合國聯合調查機制（JIM）所確認，並且近幾個月一直被報導在東部古塔和敘利亞其他地區使用化學武器，包括最近有關在杜馬發生毀滅性化學襲擊的報導。
在這種情況下，歐盟被告知了有關美國、法國和英國針對敘利亞化學武器設施的有針對性空襲，採取這些具體措施的唯一目標是防止敘利亞政權進一步使用化學武器和化學物質作為武器，殺死自己的人民。歐盟支持旨在防止使用化學武器的所有努力。正如禁止化學武器組織事實調查組所確認的，歐盟對國際社會仍然面臨使用化學武器的情況深感震驚。宣佈評估小組的報告表明，根據《禁止化學武器公約》，敘利亞的聲明不能完全被核實為準確和完整。
問責是必須的。使用化學武器或化學物質作為武器是戰爭罪和反人類罪。肇事者將被追究這種違反國際法的責任。因此，歐盟深感遺憾的是，聯合國安理會第2235（2015）號決議確定的，以確定化學武器襲擊實施者的JIM機制的授權在2017年11月未得到延期。非常遺憾地是，在這方面，聯合國安理會迄今未能通過強有力的決議，重新建立一個獨立的辨識機制，以確保對在敘利亞使用化學武器的襲擊者追究責任。
2017年7月和2018年3月，歐盟對在發展和使用化學武器方面有所作用的敘利亞高級官員和科學家實施了額外的限制措施，隨時準備考慮酌情採取進一步的措施。
歐盟呼籲所有國家，尤其是俄羅斯和伊朗，利用其影響力來防止任何進一步對化學武器的使用，特別是敘利亞政權，並支持反對使用化武有罪不罰問題的國際夥伴關係。
歐盟重申，除了政治解決，敘利亞衝突不可能有其他解決辦法。我們的共同目標是防止任何可能將敘利亞危機轉變為更廣泛的，對中東乃至全世界造成不可估量的後果的區域對抗。歐盟呼籲衝突各方特別是敘利亞政權及其盟友立即執行停火協議，並確保一致通過的聯合國安理會第2401號決議所涉及的人道主義准入和醫療後送。歐盟重申，任何可持續解決衝突的辦法，都需要根據聯合國安理會第2254號決議與2012年敘利亞各方在聯合國領導下在日內瓦進程中達成的《日內瓦公報》進行真正的政治過渡。
由歐盟和聯合國共同主持的第二屆布魯塞爾敘利亞問題會議將於2018年4月24日至25日舉行，這將是整個國際社會對重啟政治進程的一貫支援，並幫助這場持續衝突的主要受害者，即敘利亞境內外的敘利亞人民的機會。
沒有留言:
張貼留言