Defence secretary backs US response to gas attack but says Britain is not committed to military action against Assad

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The British government was not asked to provide military support to the US attack on Syria but believes it was a “wholly appropriate” response to the deadly use of chemical weapons on civilians, the defence secretary has said.

Sir Michael Fallon said the UK would not get directly involved in action with combat troops or aircraft in Syria without parliamentary approval.

But while he made clear that the decision to launch dozens of missiles on to a Syrian airbase in the early hours of Friday was a US one, he said Britain believed it was the right move.

“We fully support this strike, it was limited, it was appropriate, and it was designed to target the aircraft and the equipment that the United States believe were used in the chemical attack and to deter President [Bashar al-]Assad from carrying out future chemical attacks,” Fallon said.

He urged Russia to learn a lesson from the action, suggesting President Vladimir Putin was the key figure to end the war. “It is Russia that has the influence over the regime that can … bring this slaughter to a stop.”

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday, Fallon revealed there had been “close discussions” with the US administration since chemical weapons were dropped from warplanes on Tuesday, killing dozens of civilians, including children, in Idlib province.



He said his American counterpart, James Mattis, had phoned him to share the US assessment of the regime’s culpability, and that the UK was later informed of Trump’s final decision to take action.

The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, also expressed his support on Twitter, writing: “Fully support US action after deplorable chemical attacks.”

Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) Returning to UK after good talks w/Greek PM. Fully support US action after deplorable chemical attacks. In regular contact w/Rex Tillerson

The position was supported by a number of Conservative backbenchers and the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, who wrote in the Guardian that the UK “cannot shy away from proportionate military intervention”.

But Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the decision could worsen the humanitarian crisis.



“The US missile attack on a Syrian government airbase risks escalating the war in Syria still further,” he said. “Tuesday’s horrific chemical attack was a war crime which requires urgent independent UN investigation and those responsible must be held to account.”

Corbyn said there was a need to “urgently reconvene the Geneva peace talks and unrelenting international pressure for a negotiated settlement of the conflict”. Any intervention ought to be judged on its contribution to the outcome, he said.

Corbyn’s call to “urge restraint on the Trump administration” was backed up by the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, but contradicted by the party’s deputy leader.



Tom Watson told the Birmingham Mail earlier in the day that he believed it was a “direct and proportionate response to a clear violation of international law by the Syrian regime”. The MP said the attack using a nerve agent showed Assad retained chemical weapons capability.

Hilary Benn, who opposed Corbyn over the issue of airstrikes in Syria when he was shadow foreign secretary, tweeted: “Let’s hope Syria will now think twice before deciding to gas its own people again.”

Hilary Benn (@hilarybennmp) Let's hope Syria will now think twice before deciding to gas its own people again. Priority must be humanitarian assistance for civilians.

And Angela Eagle, another former shadow cabinet member, called the response “morally justifiable”.

Angela Eagle (@angelaeagle) The limited, targeted action taken against Syrian air assets today was morally justifiable in response to a crime against humanity... (1/2)

Alison McGovern, a Labour MP who has focused heavily on the situation in Syria, taking on the campaigning for civilian protection in the region that was started by her colleague, Jo Cox, said: “The attempt by the Assad regime to bomb, starve and gas the people of Syria into submission must not succeed and those with the capacity to act to prevent atrocities must show the resolve to do so.

“Donald Trump has signalled a willingness to act, but what is needed is not just individual actions by one country but a comprehensive strategy to protect civilians, including securing access for aid and helping refugees fleeing the conflict.”

However, the Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, condemned the missile attack as “rash, trigger happy, nonsensical”, adding: “I hoped for better from this administration.”



Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, expressed his surprise at the action. “I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying: ‘Where will it all end?’. As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I’m surprised. Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular.”

Theresa May was visiting Saudi Arabia when the chemical attack took place. Her officials made clear that nobody believed a military response from Britain was likely, although they were hopeful of support at an emergency meeting of the UN security council to condemn the Idlib attack.



May said the UK would call for the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons to investigate the attack.

“I’m very clear there can be no future for Assad in a stable Syria which is representative of all the Syrian people, and I call on all the third parties involved to ensure that we have a transition away from Assad,” the prime minister said. “We cannot allow this suffering to continue.”