This month has seen a chemical weapon attack kill in the Syria region of Damascus (according to US State Secretary John Kerry) over 1400 people, the figure currently disputed. There has been a gathering storm of interventionists wishing to see direct, military action against the regime and prosecutions for war crimes, the use of such weapons being outlawed by the Geneva Convention to which Syria is a signatory, however, the country is one of seven not to be signed to the protocol stipulating their illegality in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Needless to say, opinions have been flying both in the US and the UK, particularly in Westminster where David Cameron (incumbent PM) recalled Parliament on Thursday for a vote on proposed action.
The eight-hour debate dragged on as Cameron appealed to MPs on all sides to stand with him and fight the use of chemical weapons to which he is passionately opposed. The House of Commons was not due to reassemble until the middle of next week, Cameron calling for an impromptu recall in the face of an escalating situation. At the time, we did not know who fired the weapons (Assad or the rebels) and nor did we know precisely where they came from and as to what the chemical was required further testing and nor had the UN inspectors arrived back home- their report is due to be published in 2-3 weeks. All we really knew was the suffering endured by the Syrians, which is why Cameron called for direct military action, deciding to put it to vote so as not to make similar mistakes to those experienced in the past, namely Iraq under Tony Blair, which has fuelled the international bonfire of doubt.
Opposition:
It is because of this, that Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband set a litmus test of sorts in an amendment of his own, duplicating Cameron's pledge with requirements of strong evidence incriminating the regime for the attacks since we still don't know who fired them and for the UN to specify a common military goal with a vision of success upon the completion of that goal. This was to be done after other options were exhausted. The house rejected the opposition motion that would keep war on the table albeit being 'watered down', however, in a surprise defeat for the war motion, (last seen in 1782 when Lord North was refused to send more troops to America to fight the colonies,) Cameron found himself needing to backtrack on his initial decision. He said: "This house has voted for neither motion tonight... I get that and I will respect Parliament's wishes." Cameron's motion was defeated by 285-272 votes, meaning that, as it stands, the UK will not be going to war although later motions could potentially be tabled, should the situation escalate.
Reaction:
The immediate reaction from many newspapers was that Cameron was humiliated, especially given the shambolic organisation of the Chief Whip (Sir George Young,) who has been criticised widely within the Conservative Party for his lack of organisation. Cabinet Ministers who missed the vote by not hearing the bell included Kenneth Clark (Minister without Portfolio) and Justine Greening (Secretary of State for Transport.) This may cost the Chief Whip his job and as a backlash, Cameron is expected to reshuffle the Cabinet in a matter of weeks. Other happenings upon votes being announced included Secretary of State for Education & Science, Michael Gove, shouting at the 39 rebellious MPs (30 Tories & 9 Lib Dems,) "you're a disgrace." He had to be calmed down by other ministers.
On the other hand, some news outlets praised his grace and humility and his respect for democracy. Upon hearing the defeat, Miliband asked Cameron for a promise to not use the Royal Perogative to waive Parliament's decision. Cameron agreed to that demand in Parliament, thereby bounding him to his word in the public eye for the time being.
Unfortunately for Cameron, the grace he had seemed to have disappeared in the reaction of Downing Street spokespeople, who have made statements such as: "Ed Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit," and accusations that he was "buggering around" with Labour's position. This accusation has been repeated within the Tory ranks, blaming Miliband for political point-scoring off the back of innocent Syrians. Although no one truly knows what was discussed on multiple occasions within Downing Street, some senior Tories & Lib Dems have stated that Miliband changed his position on multiple occasions and made a U-turn in Parliament.
What I Think:
My opinion on this is that regardless of what was discussed on the run-up to the vote, Labour did provide a cogent amendment to the original motion and, en masse Labour MPs alongside government ones, rejected either one or both of the amendments, resulting first in Labour's motion being defeated (Cameron himself voted against that one along with most of the government,) and Cameron's own motion to press ahead with military intervention was also defeated, placing -as the situation currently stands- war off the table. This has been interpreted as isolationist by some such as ex-army former Lib Dem MP, Lord Ashdown, who stated that he was "ashamed" by the Parliamentary decision. Others have accused the Parliament of 'turning our back on America', with President Obama recalling Congress in order to determine a democratic result in the motion for war. We can only hope how that goes in the meantime.
As far as intervention goes, I cannot see how bombing Syria will help innocents given that we still don't know for certain that it was Assad, nor did we know where they were fired from, who the rebels are and what they represent, whether the war would turn out to be illegal should new evidence be unveiled and nor did we have: a military plan, a vision of success, a timeframe of conflict (resonating with Iraq memories) and nor did we truly know who would in fact join us (likely the US, though starting conflict first could potentially have serious consequences for us in Britain as well as Syrians who would likely die as a result of an invasion by western forces.)
What the Public Think:
The recent Observer/Opinium Poll discovered that 60% of the British public did not support a war with Syria, the ideal solution to the crisis being economic sanctions and further diplomatic pressure (59% of the public.) The decision to follow the opinion of the public has been seen as democracy in action across the political spectrum. This is why I ultimately support the action of Parliament and am against intervention on the grounds of deficient evidence and the potential for collateral, which can increase the death toll further than necessary, such as was the case in Iraq.
*As a quick though before ending this entry, I want to point you to a very useful site: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/
This details the voting record of every MP since taking office on every motion from war, to gay rights and tuition fees. It's very enlightening indeed and I hope that you have found the info/opinions above useful. See you soon.
LINKS:
- http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-3&chapter=26&lang=en (UN: 1/9/2013)
- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog (Guardian: 1/9/2013)
- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote (Guardian: 1/9/2013)
- http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/labours-amendment-syria-full-text (Labour Amendment: 1/9/2013)
- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/31/poll-british-military-action-syria (Poll, 1/9/2013)
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2406208/Syria-conflict-Tory-rebellion-forces-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-rule-military-strike-country.html (Daily Mail: 1/9/2013)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZoaeF21LZQ (Lord Ashdown video: 1/9/2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment