A transcript from Boulton & Co Live on Sky News. Aired 2/9/13, 1345.
Adam Boulton: With me is the former Defence Secretary and Conservative MP Dr Liam Fox, thank you for being with us. David Cameron said, “I get that,” last week, “there will be no further parliamentary discussion of this question,” having had his own notion rejected. Do you think there are grounds for having a rethink in the British parliament, a second vote?
Liam Fox MP: Well I am entirely with the NATO Secretary General, I don’t think we can ignore this. In terms of the UK parliament, before a second vote could happen I think two things would need to change. The first is that more information and new information would have to be made available to parliament, and the second would be that the labour party leadership would have to change from being parliamentary tacticians to thinking about Britain’s place in the world. Is there ground on either of those for another vote? I think yes on both. I think the evidence that was put forward by John Kerry about the scale of the attacks, including the fact that the numbers were bigger of those killed, including up to 400 children; the fact that it was ricin that was used; and the information that led to the conclusion that it was the Assad regime; none of that was really there in that detail before parliament took its decision last week. We’ve also had President Obama talking about any action being limited in both time and scope, which I think would have reduced the anxieties of a lot of members of parliament, and on the second question—
Adam Boulton: Of the Labour Party.
Liam Fox MP:—of the Labour Party, I think that there are a lot of members of the Labour Party, quite senior ones, who are now deeply worried that they’ve given the impression that they don’t think anything should be done in the light of chemical weapons attacks and I know personally that is not their opinion and I think that they are very worried that that is the impression they are giving both in Briton and internationally.
Adam Boulton: But even within your own Conservative Party, I have yet to see either someone who voted against the government last week or who failed to vote, so we presume was not in sympathy with the government, actually saying, “I got it wrong now, I want to rethink.”
Liam Fox MP: Well I think it will take time, as more evidence comes forward. We’re going to see a congressional vote probably not until the middle of next week, which gives people time, I think, to look at even more evidence, and I think that we really do need to think the consequence through of not acting at all—what will be the implications for the safety of the people of Syria against their own regime?—and I think we also have to send a signal to both sides and I think perhaps this has been lost a little, that both sides may have the capability to use chemical weapons in this particular civil war, the international community should not become involved in that civil war, but I think in terms of our international legal obligations, we should say that neither side will be able to use these chemical weapons against civilians and be tolerated by the international community.
Adam Boulton: But what about the Prime Minister’s credibility? He was voted down by parliament, he said he accepted it, he listed to the opinions of the British people and if he went back and said, “Well, actually I didn’t really mean it, let’s have a second vote,” wouldn’t he look even weaker and even less reliable as a leader?
Liam Fox MP: No, I don’t buy that. The idea was that parliament was brought back because there was an international crisis. I imagine if the Prime Minister had not recalled parliament the opposition would say parliament is not getting its say in this very critical international issue. There was always intended to be a second vote anyway before any action was taken military that included the United Kingdom and I think that if the circumstances change, and I think that they have changed; that the information is clear, and I think it is; and the opposition’s position is perhaps more nuanced, which I think it may well be; then I think that does give the opening to have a second vote.
Adam Boulton: Is your desire to have a second vote, is it based on the fact that you simply think the use of chemical weapons cannot go unchecked or is it because you are worried that if Britain is left in this position and the US congress and the President go ahead and endorse military action, our standing in the world will be damaged.
Liam Fox MP: Well there’s a bit of both, but a lot more of the former. Now I think that when you look at what was used—ricin—let’s be very clear, is an extremely nasty thing to use. It’s a particularly unpleasant way to die. Eventually children, adults, paralysed, unable to breath, chocking on their own saliva. I mean, are really saying that we are willing to stand back and tolerate that? It is a war crime, in terms of international law; we cannot let it go unmarked. That’s one thing. In terms of Britain’s position in the world, yes I think that not to become involved would diminish our voice, at least for a time. In terms of the special relationship with the United States, that’s a different matter because that’s a relationship largely based on intelligence and military cooperation, and that’s stood the test of time and would stand—
Adam Boulton: Not in this case though—
Liam Fox MP:—it would stand the test of time, notwithstanding the fact that we would have taken a different position if congress decides it’s going to act next week.
Adam Boulton: Now you are known to have very strong links, which you’ve taken great pains to keep fresh with the American, particularly the Republican Party in the United States. Do you think that Republicans, particularly in their congress, are actually going to vote for military action or will they take the opportunity, perhaps a little bit as Labour did, to kick the president they don’t like very much?
Liam Fox MP: It more difficult to say than it normally would be Adam, because I think the politics in Washington is even more tribal than it’s ever been, and I think this is a really important moment, because there are isolationist elements in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but I think they need to think that if the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, decides that it’s not going to act, and not going to respond to the cold-blooded murder of men, women and children—defenceless civilians—then where does that leave the international community and America’s leadership?
Adam Boulton: Because, you know, the problem is that, it’s been made very clear that only limited action is being planned—in a sense, token action, a red line has been crossed, and then in military terms, “a slap”. Now, people are going to die in that slap inevitably and a lot of people think, “Well, if it’s just a gesture, it’s not worth making”.
Liam Fox MP: Well, it’s not just a gesture, it’s a very clear signal that if chemical weapons are used there will be a response. If…there would be a number of military options about degrading the regime’s command and control, for example. The difficulty, as has been pointed out by numerous commentators, is how do you manage to do that without tilting the balance in the civil war. That’s a military judgement. The political task for us as politicians, is to say whether we will actually uphold international law and then allow the military to do their job and carry out the wishes of politicians in a way that doesn’t involve us and people like myself have been for a long time saying this civil war is nothing to do with us, both sides are equally unsavoury in this particular civil war, but we cannot, I think, morally and legally stand back and do nothing when we see slaughter in the streets.
Adam Boulton: So in your view as a former Defence Secretary, what do you think would be the appropriate sort of military action.
Liam Fox MP: Well there would be a number of ways, for example as we did in Libya, of diminishing the ability of the regime to wage particular types of war against it’s population. Intelligence services will have a lot of information at their fingertips about exactly how that operates and that would be for them to decide.
Adam Boulton: And what about the whole principle of the executive, which traditionally on both sides of the Atlantic has led in foreign affairs and led in decisions to go to war, deciding, “Right, we’re going to consult the legislature, we’re gonna consult parliaments and congress.” Is that a healthy development in your view?
Liam Fox MP: It’s a healthy development up to a point. But in a time of crisis, of course, leadership has to be able to act. I think the situation that they’ve had in the United States where the president has executive powers to commit armed forces only if after a period of time he is given the authority by congress, I think that’s a suitable balance and I think we might want to think of something similar.
Adam Boulton: I mean, let’s take the example of aggressive action against Gibraltar or again against the Falklands, is that the sort of thing we should refer to the United Nations before we give a military response to?
Liam Fox MP: If Britain’s sovereign territory is attacked then we should respond as quickly as possible with all the force we have at our fingertips. If something were to happen to Gibraltar or something were to happen again to the Falklands, I would expect whoever was Prime Minister at the time to immediately mount a military response, perhaps then go to parliament to get parliament’s approval but to wait at times of crisis would be a mistake.
Adam Boulton: Liam Fox, thank you very much indeed.