SIR – I will attempt to constrain myself to the 200- word limit normally provided to correspondents to the Worcester News.

In general, I approve of our elected representatives [Robin Walker, Harriett Baldwin and Peter Luff] explaining their actions in the House of Commons.

However, on the most recent occasion (Worcester News, September 5), I find the main thrust of their arguments somewhat confusing.

All three MPs asserted that the PM’s Syria motion included no commitment to military action. However, two paragraphs of the motion refer to the possibility of military action, albeit with the approval of Parliament.

If approved, the threat of military action would have been behind any further diplomatic attempts to restrain both parties involved in the civil war in Syria.

We need an answer to a much bigger question.

What are Britain’s global responsibilities in the 21st century?

Changes to the British Empire post-Second World War mean that we are a small fish in a big pond – a small island with a somewhat larger reputation than we perhaps deserve.

The founding purpose of the United Nations, formed out of the ashes of the League of Nations, was to maintain international peace and security, to promote global cooperation, and advance human rights.

Unfortunately, the UN appears to be heading down the same road as the League of Nations in that in this instance it appears to be toothless and only paying heed to the interests of a handful of countries and not those of the innocents involved.

The security council is a political pawn and, on this occasion, the power rests with Russia. World leaders need to be more careful – we run the risk of history repeating itself.

Could the letters editor also ensure that, in future when they present us with such weighty missives from our elected representatives, they also allow us to read some of George Cowley’s wise words?

I really missed his contribution to the letters page on that day.

ROBYN NORFOLK

Worcester