After being asked on whether he regrets his decision blocking military backing, Miliband replied ‘No, I don’t’ [GETTY[
Former UK Labour Leader Ed Miliband says he does not regret voting against military action against Syria in 2013 after the regime carried out a chemical attack on its citizens.
Following a parliamentary vote, the politician led efforts to block then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempts to launch strikes in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
Speaking to Good Morning Britain, after presenter Adil Ray asked Miliband whether he regretted his decision, the politician replied: “No I don’t”.
“I believe that after the war in Iraq…we should not commit British troops to combat unless we had a clear plan, what would it involve for Britain, what was our exit strategy, and how would we achieve our aims, and I didn’t believe the proposition David Cameron put on the table met that criteria,” Miliband explained.
The motion was unsuccessful, with 285 votes to 272, with Labour, 30 Conservatives and nine Liberal Democrats voting against it. The Conservative Party expressed anger at Miliband’s decision as he reportedly showed support for the motion but changed his mind.
There were reports the former opposition leader had been warned by the chief whip of a “huge rebellion” within the Labour Party if he supported the vote.
Supporters of the motion have argued that it would have caused the Assad regime to be defeated faster, and many lives would have been spared. Miliband said that former US president Trump’s military action in 2017 did not result in the regime falling.
“I need to believe it was right for Britain, nor do I actually believe it would hasten the end of Assad,” Miliband said.
The military action would have been US-led airstrikes, but then-US President Barack Obama said he did not act because his allies did not support him.
Critiques from the Labour Party
Miliband, who is now Energy Secretary, has been criticised for his stance. Health Secretary Wes Streeting told BBC Question Time that “the hesitation of this country and the United States created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer”.
“I think if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone.”
“Would that have led to a better Syria? I don’t know. We know from our own foreign policy history that inaction is a choice, but so is action, and we’ve seen in other cases, like Libya, that it did not lead to a better future.”
Streeting has since posted on X that he did not critique the Miliband directly but “pointed out the challenges of hindsight, Libya and the uncertainty we face about post-Assad Syria today”.
Miliband responded to Streeting on BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme, saying he disagrees with his cabinet colleague and stands by his decision.
“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,” Miliband said.
A total of 1,127 people were killed in the Ghouta chemical attack during in 2013, and over 3,000 were injured with neurotoxic symptoms.
Assad’s regime and its Russian allies have always denied using chemical weapons against people during the war, despite evidence stating the majority of the chemical attacks were carried out by the regime.
Cameron had decried the use of chemical weapons as “morally indefensible”, asking MPs to approve taking action as a deterrent.
The fall of Assad on Sunday opens up the opportunity for Syria to dispose of its chemical weapons arsenal.
Syrian rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Golani, said he was closely following up on possible weapons depots and coordinating with international organisations to secure them.
