It wasn’t me... the search for answers in Syria

Risqué rapper Shaggy’s appearance at the Queen’s birthday concert on Saturday raised eyebrows amongst royal watchers – but parliament was clearly getting into the spirit with their own version of his greatest hit.

Theresa May took to the mic for her remix entitled ‘It Was Bashar’, while Jeremy Corbyn took the role of Shaggy, setting up increasingly elaborate diversions casting doubt on Assad’s involvement in the suspected chemical attack in Douma which reportedly killed up to 75 people, including children, and caused around 500 further casualties.

Corbyn began his warm up with Andrew Marr the morning after May had joined with Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron, firing missiles at suspected chemical weapons facilities at Barzeh and Him Shinsar.

He said there is “very strong evidence about the use of chlorine, which… clearly as a weapon it is illegal”. But Was It Bashar?

“Chlorine has been used by a number of parties in the conflict,” said Corbyn. What if investigators say It Was Bashar?

“Confront Assad with that evidence, confront any other group that may be fingered [but] I can only countenance involvement in Syria if there’s a UN authority behind it,” he said.

Corbyn then started to riff a little when asked if he accepted the chemical poisoning in Salisbury was a state-sponsored attempt to kill former Russian spy Sergei Skripal. Was It Putin?

“I want to see incontrovertible evidence,” said Corbyn. Seriously?

“The nerve agent itself is very similar to those that have been made in Russia,” he conceded. Does he agree with John McDonnell’s assessment that It Was Putin?

“You’ve got to have absolutely incontrovertible evidence… assertions and probabilities are not the same as certainty,” said Corbyn.

When it was pointed out that Russia has vetoed UN action against Assad six times and that he opposed a raid on Islamic State in Syria in 2015, even though it did have UN authority behind it, Corbyn engaged in his favourite game of whataboutery.

“Both sides have either vetoed or threatened to veto,” he said, and then threw sand in Marr’s eyes.

“Our exports that go to Saudi Arabia, for example, end up killing people in the Yemen, but also end up somewhere in very bad hands, in Syria and other places.”

In parliament on Monday, Crispin Blunt, the Tory chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, sung another chorus – It Wasn’t Saud.

“People who demand evidence and then repeat malicious gossip for which there is not only no evidence, but which is contradicted by the non-governmental organisations that are specialists in the area, are guilty of very poor double standards,” said the former soldier.

Corbyn said suspicion for the chemical attack “rightly” pointed at Assad, coming perilously close to singing ‘It Was Bashar’ before pointing out that the Saudi-backed militia Jaish al-Islam was also “reported to have gas in Aleppo in 2016”. May insisted Jaish al-Islam don’t have helicopters.

Opposition MPs were angry that they weren’t allowed to join in the singalong, and started heckling from the cheap seats with a counterpoint that parliament should have been consulted before the missile strike was authorised.

For all the hours of debate that have been devoted to May’s decision to act without parliamentary authority, her explanation on Monday was pretty short and to the point –  speed was “essential in cooperating with our partners” and the strike was based on intelligence “that could not be shared with parliament”.

Moreover, former defence secretary Michael Fallon – who probably has some sympathy with Shaggy’s repentant rake who was caught red-handed creeping with the girl next door – had already dealt with this matter.

In a ministerial statement in 2016, he said the war powers convention should not become law “to protect the security and interests of the UK in circumstances that we cannot predict, and to avoid such decisions becoming subject to legal action”.

by Kate Shannon

Scotland’s relationship with Russia has come under the microscope

In parliament on Monday, Fallon insisted “the public well understand” the need to strike without notice.

Well, up to a point, Sir Michael. A Survation poll of over 2,000 people conducted directly after the strike found the public pretty divided, with 40 per cent against and 36 per cent for.

A majority of 54 per cent said May should have held a parliamentary debate, as just 27 per cent trust her to make the right decision on Syria. Even fewer people trust Corbyn’s judgement on Syria.

Intriguingly, Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister most people would trust in a conflict, with the support of 30 per cent of those polled – despite, or perhaps because of, her reputation for ruling with an iron handbag – while all the other prime ministers since were hovering around single figures in the poll.

Corbyn put the matter of parliamentary sovereignty to the vote – sort of – on Monday night, but the debate ended in farce.

He lodged an oddly worded motion that parliament had “considered parliament’s rights in relation to the approval of military action”, and then whipped his MPs to vote against it in an attempt to embarrass the government.

More than 50 backbenchers abstained and only 205 of Labour’s 259 followed his instructions, and the motion was passed, thanks to the support of the Conservatives, by 317 votes to 256.

The SNP, whose parliamentarians have been amongst the most vocal critics of May’s decision to strike without consulting parliament, voted against the motion –  but appeared to agree that It Was Bashar.

Nicola Sturgeon said “we cannot tolerate Syria’s use of chemical weapons on a civilian population” and that she has “no difficulty believing Assad is capable of launching a chemical weapons attack on his own population”.

Few SNP MPs criticised Assad directly, and instead directed their anger toward Trump, Putin and the House of Saud.

Sturgeon added: “I am not persuaded that isolated air strikes that may make western leaders feel as if they are doing something, and which sometimes on this occasion feel that it is more to do with a macho strongman standoff between presidents Trump and Putin rather than about aiding peace in Syria.”

Ian Blackford said May “is choosing to side with Donald Trump rather than the UN Secretary General who has said military intervention is not the answer”.

SNP MPs Alan Brown and Peter Grant did their own Arabian sword dance on the side, asking why nobody was talking about Yemen during a debate about Syria.

“So far today, the Prime Minister has ducked out of questions about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world – Yemen,” said Brown.

Grant said May should turn her attention to other dictators “who commit other heinous war crimes against civilians, including the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that currently stands accused of around 150 separate war crimes against innocent civilians in Yemen”, and insisted there is a “contradiction between the severe action she has taken in Syria and her willingness to sell another £2 billion-worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia”.

Sir Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leader, said some of May’s arguments for action are “compelling” but insisted she should not have struck without consulting parliament first.

The Prime Minister would not – or could not – answer Green leader Caroline Lucas’ demand to know when Him Shinsar and Barzeh were identified as active chemical weapons facilities.

Her decision appeared to be based on a balance of probabilities and a fear of being left out if Trump and Macron decided to strike without her.

May repeatedly stressed she was “not just following orders from America” but acting in Britain’s “national interest” to prevent the normalisation of chemical attacks in Syria and the UK – a nod to the suspected poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury.

The US acted unilaterally after the attack on Khan Shaykhun in 2017, but the UK and France decided to join the latest action “to have a greater impact on the regime’s capability and willingness to use chemical weapons”, she said.

She also insisted UN inspectors had found him culpable on four previous occasions, which suggests he was also being punished for past crimes.

May said she was “confident” that Assad was “highly likely responsible” for the latest attack, Corbyn said suspicion “rightly” points at Assad, and Sturgeon said she has “no difficulty” believing it was him.

So It Was Bashar… maybees?