Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said he does not regret voting to block UK military action against then Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2013.
Prime Minister at the time David Cameron had wanted to attack Syria, after reports Assad had used chemical weapons on his own citizens.
However, Miliband, who was then leading Labour, directed his MPs to vote against the proposal, preventing the UK from taking part in any action.
Miliband was forced to respond after his cabinet colleague Health Secretary Wes Streeting questioned that decision.
Appearing on the BBC’s Question Time, Streeting, who was not an MP at the time, said: “With hindsight, I think we can say looking back on the events of 2013 the hesitation of this country and the US created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer.”
He added: “What we cannot say is that the back of Assad is going to lead to a better Syria.”
Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme if he agreed with Streeting’s argument, Miliband said: “No, I don’t.”
“I believe after what happened in Iraq, where hundreds of British troops died and thousands were injured, we could not commit British military forces without a clear plan.
“As to the question about whether it would have led to the end of Assad, the truth is in 2017 and 2018 Donald Trump bombed Assad and it did not lead to the end of Assad.
“I welcome the fall of a brutal dictator… but those people who say if only we had taken military action he would have somehow fallen – I just frankly don’t believe it.”
Asked about the differing views between the two ministers, a No 10 spokesman said the government’s priority was “the safety of civilians and the peaceful transfer of power” in Syria.
“Obviously I’m not going to comment on something that alludes to a period pre-this government,” the prime minister’s spokesman said.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, who voted for military action in 2013, said he regretted the House of Commons as a whole did not.
“We were working with President Obama because Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people,” he said.
“And international law said we should have acted.”
Last week, Assad fled to Russia after rebel forces seized control of the Syrian capital, ending decades of rule by the Assad family.
During his rule, Human Rights Watch documented at least 85 chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the majority of which it said were carried out by the Syrian government – something they have denied.
Victims of the chemical attacks have been speaking to the BBC, including Tawfiq Diam, whose wife and four children were killed in 2018.
In 2013, Cameron said use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was “morally indefensible” and asked MPs to approve the principle of taking military action to deter further use of such weapons.
The military action would have taken the form of US-led air strikes rather than an on the ground invasion.
The motion was defeated by 285 votes to 272, with Labour, 30 Conservatives and nine Lib Dems voting against.
Following the vote, Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want to take action and that he would “act accordingly”.
Although then-US President Barack Obama has said the he would punish any use of chemical weapons by Syria, he did not act, in part because of a lack of support from other allies including the UK.
Conservatives expressed anger at the time, accusing Miliband of initially promising Cameron his support but later changing his mind.
There were reports Miliband had been warned that if he backed military action he could face a rebellion from his own MPs, many of whom were still bruised by the Labour government’s involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
