Posted on 2013-08-30 | 04:59

Roger voted against the Government motion to take military action in Syria, and he believes that the House of Commons made the right decision in refusing to authorise missing strikes. Roger said: “The priority must be to prevent further loss of life and protect the human rights of the people of Syria. I do not believe that the best way to do this is to launch missile attacks against a population which is already suffering the casualties and horrors of war.”

Roger made the decision to vote against military action because he was concerned that strikes against Syria would only cause the conflict to escalate, possibly to the wider region, with the loss of yet more lives.

Roger compared the rush to take a vote on military action against Syria to the run-up to the Iraq war, which lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. He said: “Have we learned nothing from the Iraq war, when the UK rushed into military action without waiting for a UN mandate? If the UK is to take any action it must follow the proper steps before doing so, and wait for a mandate from the UN Security Council.”

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has called for more time to be allowed for peaceful and diplomatic methods, while the Arab League has opposed retaliatory strikes on Syria. There have already been reports of an increased flow of refugees leaving Syria, while Israel has started calling up reserve troops. Roger is concerned that missile strikes will worsen the humanitarian crisis in Syria and threaten regional stability, and will fail to prevent further atrocities being committed against the people of Syria.

Roger is calling on the Government to take urgent action on humanitarian assistance, the provision of aid to refugees, and diplomatic pressure for a peaceful solution. He said: “The decision between doing nothing and firing missiles into Syria is a false one. We can and should act to help refugees, send aid to people who need it, and sanction a regime with no regard for the lives of its citizens.”