New York Times
|
|
LONDON - Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote by 13 votes on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response.
Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act
Mohammad Abdullah/Reuters
Mohamed Abdullah/Reuters
Ammar Al-Arbini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Mohamed Abdullah/Reuters
SANA, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Richard Drew/Associated Press
Matt Dunham/Associated Press
Antoine Antoniol/Getty Images
Herbert Neubauer/European Pressphoto Agency
United Nations inspectors looked for evidence of chemical attacks on Thursday in the Damascus suburb of Zamalka.
By STEVEN ERLANGER and STEPHEN CASTLE
Published: August 29, 2013 326 Comments
LONDON — The stunning parliamentary defeat on Thursday for Prime
Minister David Cameron that led him to rule out British military
participation in any strike on Syria reflected British fears of rushing
to act against Damascus without certain evidence.
Multimedia
Related
-
Document: British Intelligence Assessment
Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
-
Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No (August 30, 2013)
-
Syrian Lawmakers Warn Britain Over Military Strike (August 30, 2013)
Related in Opinion
-
Editorial: More Answers Needed on Syria (August 29, 2013)
Matt Dunham/Associated Press
After losing a vote in Parliament on Thursday, Prime
Minister David Cameron said he understood the lawmakers’ sentiments.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
By just 13 votes, British lawmakers rejected a motion urging an
international response to a chemical weapons strike for which the United
States has blamed the forces of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
The vote, and Mr. Cameron’s pledge to honor it, is a blow to President
Obama. Like nearly all presidents since the Vietnam War, he has relied
on Britain to be shoulder-to-shoulder with Washington in any serious
military or security engagement.
But Mr. Obama’s efforts to marshal a unified international front for a
short, punitive strike raised concerns about the evidence, reawakening
British resentment over false assurances from the American and British
governments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Even on Thursday, a British summary of intelligence could say only that
it was “highly likely” Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible for the use
of chemical weapons. And many questions were raised, both Thursday night
and in the days before, about whether the American assurances could be
taken at face value, whether the expected riposte would accomplish any
serious strategic or policy aim, and whether it might set off a worse
regional conflict.
The government had seemed only days from joining the United States and
France in cruise-missile strikes on Syrian targets, even though a United
Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force was out of reach,
because of Russia and China.
Mr. Cameron had yielded to the opposition Labour Party’s demands for a
separate, second vote to authorize military force, to be held only after
United Nations weapons inspectors finish their work in Syria. It was
widely expected that Mr. Cameron would win Thursday night’s relatively
meaningless vote on a motion supporting the notion that the chemical
attack required an international humanitarian response that could
involve military action. Instead, it was rejected, 285 to 272.
After the shocking defeat, Mr. Cameron was clear. “I strongly believe in
the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons,” he said.
“While the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the
British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not
want to see British military action. I get that, and the government
will act accordingly.”
The defeat, a sign of Mr. Cameron’s weakness, was also a tactical
victory for the often-criticized Labour leader, Ed Miliband. But in
larger terms, it is also a measure of Britain’s increasing isolation
from its allies — both inside the European Union and now with
Washington.
A strong anti-European wave on the British right led Mr. Cameron to
promise a referendum on continued British membership in the European
Union. And there is deep skepticism of Washington’s foreign policy,
especially after the long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“The prime minister knew that the well had been poisoned by Iraq, but I
don’t think he realized how much that was the case,” a Conservative
legislator said, asking for anonymity. “They trust Cameron but not
necessarily the advice he is being given.”
The vote took Britain into new constitutional territory, the lawmaker
added, with Parliament effectively vetoing military action. Political
recriminations are likely. But there was little disguising the
humiliation for Mr. Cameron, who recalled Parliament specifically for a
motion that he first watered down, then lost.
There is also a deep wariness here of using military force without the
explicit backing of international law, expressed most clearly in a
Security Council resolution, as was the case when Britain participated
fully in the NATO campaign to unseat Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya.
Mr. Miliband argued that, absent a resolution, the evidence should at
least be put before the Security Council before any military action. The
days of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who cited “humanitarian
intervention” as a casus belli, seem long gone in a country that now
widely disparages him and his record.
Mr. Cameron’s troubles may not deter Mr. Obama from acting with the
support of France, where legislative consultation is important but
approval is unnecessary. But though President François Hollande appears
ready, the French public, too, has doubts.
In the British Parliament on Thursday, the theme of doubt was foremost.
Paul Flynn, of Labour, said that prior uses of chemical weapons, as
against the Kurds, had not drawn such a response. “Is not the real
reason we are here today not the horror at these weapons — if that
horror exists — but as a result of the American president having
foolishly drawn a red line, so that he is now in the position of either
having to attack or face humiliation?” he asked.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, said Britain should not allow American
assurances to influence its decisions. He was particularly concerned
with “the fate of the Christians” in Syria should Mr. Assad fall. And he
asked whether the impact of military action would be sufficient to
justify the likely deaths.
However, Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign and defense secretary who is
chairman of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, said,
“There is no guarantee that a military strike against military targets
will work, but there is every certainty that if we do not make that
effort to punish and deter, these actions will indeed continue.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:Correction: August 30, 2013
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to Britain’s participation in the NATO campaign to unseat Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. The military action had the backing of a Security Council resolution; it is not the case that Britain participated “without one.”
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment