Letters: UK intervention is no help to Syrians

These letters were published in the 7th December edition of The Independent

Syrian boys follow an Isis militant in Raqqa (AP)

As British Syrians, we regret the decision of the House of Commons to vote for airstrikes in Syria. UK involvement in the Coalition will not necessarily make us safer from the threat posed by terrorist groups, nor is it expected to have any significant impact in addressing radicalisation on the ground in Syria. Rather, it very much has the potential to fan the flames of radicalisation and therefore expose us to greater vulnerabilities.

We stress that any threat that Isis poses to the UK is ultimately attributable to the Assad regime. Without first addressing the Assad regime’s indiscriminate use of force in Syria, which created the violence, chaos, and destruction that allowed for the emergence of terrorist groups in Syria, we cannot begin to tackle the threat posed by Isis. Without addressing the Assad regime’s indiscriminate aerial bombardments, we will not be able to convince Syrian moderate opposition forces to cooperate with us in our fight against Isis.

Syrians themselves have been on the front lines against Isil. However, to expect them to turn their efforts against Isis while they are being bombed from the sky by Assad (and now Russian) forces is wishful thinking. We therefore need to ensure support and protection for the moderate opposition and for the civilians they fight for in order for them to effectively combat Isis on the ground.

We do not expect that the UK’s involvement with the Coalition will lead to any success in combating Isis as long as civilians remain unprotected from Assad and Russia’s indiscriminate aerial bombardments. We will continue to campaign for a comprehensive solution to the Syrian conflict, which holds at its core civilian protection.

Dr Mohamed Najjar

Peace and Justice for Syria, London

Dr Sharif K Al-Ghazal

Syrian Association of Yorkshire

Dr Haytham Alhamwi

Rethink Rebuild Society, Manchester

Amr Salahi

Syria Solidarity UK

Dr Mohammad Alhadj Ali

Syrian Welsh Society

With the greatest respect to Dr John Cameron and his son (Letters, 4 December), I think that, in praising “the exertions of better men” in securing a society’s freedom by being prepared to go to war, John Stuart Mill did not envisage those exertions being limited to bombing from 30,000 feet and launching unmanned drones.

Jenny Bryer

Birmingham

For Isis to get money from the sale of oil somebody must buy it. It is a testimony to the bankruptcy of the US/UK strategy and standing that they don’t think to tackle this funding stream by diplomatic, political or legal action against the buyers, but by dropping ordnance on the oil fields.

Mary Pimm and Nik Wood

London E9

As the British Government states that there are 70,000 “moderate” Syrian fighters available to fight Isis, maybe David Cameron should inform the US Government where they are.

During a US Senate Armed Forces hearing in September, the US Army General Lloyd Austin stated that an outlay of $500m to train Syrian forces against Isis has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling Isil: “We’re talking four or five,” said General Austin.

Barry M Watson

Doncaster

Adding a few RAF planes and bombs to the current campaign in Syria may make some small difference. However, it will surely not be a deciding factor. The best military solution (involving inevitably a ground and air campaign) would be a UN-sponsored force. This would counter the claim that those fighting Isil are retread imperialists.

That is what Messrs Cameron, Hollande and Co should primarily be striving for.

Rev Andrew McLuskey

Stanwell, Staines

Taking into account the length of time we have spent waiting for the Chilcot report, should we start the report on the Syrian war now?

Penny King

Norwich

Nuclear energy is an immoral choice

Contrary to the article “COP21: World must embrace nuclear power to save planet from climate change, claim leading scientists” (3 December), many scientists around the world remain sceptical that nuclear is the answer, or even part of the answer, to climate change. James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley have a fine record in identifying the causes and consequences of climate change, but their proposed solution simply does not make sense.

The main problem is that, contrary what many think, nuclear power is a poor method of reducing carbon emissions: its uranium ore and fuel processes have heavy carbon footprints.

The renewables, especially wind and solar, are now less expensive, quicker to install, and much safer: with them one does not have to worry about the spectres of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

But perhaps most important of all is the moral dimension. Given the technical and political obstacles to dangerous spent nuclear fuel, should we be passing these problems to future generations? What about the Irish Sea – still the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world due to Sellafield’s discharges? What about the sheep farms in north Wales still subject to food controls due to radioactive contamination from Chernobyl almost 30 years ago?

The climate change negotiators in Paris should think hard before recommending nuclear as a solution. It isn’t.

Dr Paul Dorfman

Dr Ian Fairlie

Dr David Lowry

Jonathon Porritt

London N5

Andrew Grice (5 December) says that Labour woes eclipsed the real story of last week – deployment of the UK’s armed services. However, as Caroline Lucas said on Question Time, the real story of the week is the attempts in Paris to tackle climate change. There are those who attribute many problems (eg Syria, immigration) to the long-term effects of climate change. Cynics might say the Government’s debate and decision on Syria were actually timed to divert focus from their appalling record on green issues and their failure to tackle this urgent crisis.

Patrick Corbett

Edinburgh

The Government seems chary about connecting the extreme weather events associated with climate change and the burning of hydrocarbons for energy. Perhaps if the Department of the Environment were merged with the Department of Energy, it might be clearer to the Chancellor how increasing spending on flood prevention and subsidies for gas and oil for energy generation come under the same heading.

David Gibbs

London SW4

Unfair depiction of momentum group

Articles in The Independent (5 December) paint Momentum as a ragbag of murderous, misogynistic trolls. Lambeth Momentum had its launch last Thursday. All of the designated speakers other than John McDonnell were local women. One of the largest public spaces in the borough was almost full. A wide spectrum of left opinion was represented in the various speeches and contributions and yet, in repeating Conservative Future’s account of the meeting, you printed what amounted to a hatchet job.

Aubrey Nunes

London SW2

Your report “Pro-war Labour MPs ‘bullied by extremists’” (3 December) carried a photo captioned “Protesters gather outside the home of Stella Creasy MP in east London”, whereas the text, correctly, said that Creasy’s office was targeted.

The error gave rise to the entirely false idea that a peaceful march, organised by a local resident and a local vicar, was demonstrating outside the home of an MP; this in turn led to comments about the violent behaviour of peace activists and Corbyn supporters.

Sally Parrott

Cranleigh, Surrey

John McDonnell is right to say that bullying by constituents is wholly unacceptable, but recriminations in the form of deselection are entirely legitimate and, I hope, inevitable. From this difficult episode may come some light through the opportunity to position Labour more to the left and more in line with its membership. We may yet see ourselves with an effective opposition.

Patrick Cosgrove

Bucknell, Shropshire

As a passionate member of Momentum, a place within which I feel at home as a progressive political activist, I am growing somewhat weary of the accusations of “bullying and intimidation” from the people who were the living models of Malcolm Tucker.

Manda Scott

Clungunford, Shropshire

Weasel words and zero-hours contracts

Mark Beaston (Letters, 5 December) writes “according to ONS figures only about a third of zero hours contract workers want more hours and just 22 per cent are looking for a new job”. “Only”? “Just”? The use of these minimising words suggests a deliberate distortion of the meaning of the figures by Mr Beaston.

Tony Baker

Thirsk, North Yorkshire

Got something to say?

Email: letters@independent.co.uk

Post: Letters to the Editor, The Independent, 2 Derry Street,

London. W8 5HF