Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Last week's parliamentary debate on whether the UK should join action against Assad unexpectedly turned into high drama. David Cameron had taken a moral lead in condemning Assad's brutality, especially the recent use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.
He ordered an emergency recall of Parliament to seek authorisation to join American deterrence of further chemical attacks. The cost of bringing parliamentarians back to Britain could have funded a cruise missile. Given that Parliament was due back a few days later, the implication was that an attack was imminent.
The Liberal Democrats endorsed this and it seemed that Opposition Leader Ed Miliband would do likewise. However, it became clear that Labour MPs would not endorse precipitate action and Miliband proposed various conditions which Cameron accepted without much enthusiasm.
These included waiting for the report from UN weapons inspectors and a UN Security Council vote. This ruled out British participation in immediate action and the debate suddenly looked like a damp squib before a planned second vote.
Cameron instructed his foot soldiers to pass a motion saying action could be necessary. To everyone's shock and awe, this limited motion was lost thanks to a substantial rebellion by many Conservatives. One could argue that Cameron was "fragged" - shot in the back by his own side.
Cameron completely misjudged his own party in what many see as a good day for the independence of MPs and the authority of Parliament.
However, Cameron lost control over foreign policy. The UK will not now participate in attacking Assad although Obama can rely on France and others. That the UK is not closely hugging America may fundamentally redefine British foreign policy and probably changes their "special relationship." The old American jibe about the French being cheese-eating surrender monkeys has evaporated.
The debate wasn't strictly about regime change in Syria but may accelerate regime change in Britain. Cameron may be a lame duck while many see Miliband as having played a blinder in defence of the primacy of the UN and as being more in tune with public opinion.
My own view is that Assad's use of chemical weapons - a judgement not yet an absolutely established fact - justified action to enforce Obama's insistence that it is a red line that cannot be crossed and a taboo that should be maintained. If it is crossed with impunity then American credibility is undermined and Assad will feel that he can do it again. Other countries are watching very carefully. Iran could conclude that it can go nuclear and get away with it.
As Nadhim Zahawi MP told the Commons: "From Munich to Srebrenica, the lesson of history is that one violation of international law leads to another." The lack of any decent initial response to Halabja in 1988 emboldened Saddam to attack Kuwait in 1990 and to continue genocide before the no-fly zone was imposed in 1991. Cameron himself told Robert Halfon MP, a leading member of our Kurdistan group, that: "It may well be that the fact that no action was taken over Halabja was one of the things that convinced President Assad that it was okay to build up an arsenal of chemical weapons."
This isn't the lesson from Iraq for most who see the 2003 intervention as a disaster, that intelligence was fabricated and they won't be fooled again. MPs demanded clear proof that Assad perpetrated the atrocity in Ghouta. Some demanded to know the consequences of action in advance, although any strategy is changed by contact with the enemy. Making the perfect the enemy of the good renders almost any action impossible. The paradox is that this increases the thresholds for intervention just as Assad is lowering military thresholds to include chemical weapons.
The long swing from liberal interventionism has been led by a swell of divergent voices. Leftists think imperialism is the central problem and wish to stop the bombing of Syria, although there have been no mass demonstrations against Assad. The insular right don't see any national interest in Britain policing faraway places. Many feel that intervention wouldn't work and that the alternative to Assad could be Al Qaeda amid wider worries about being immersed in a major Sunni-Shia conflict.
It illustrates how Iraq has poisoned the well, as Cameron conceded. Conservative MP Rory Stewart - a critic of the intervention – says that "Britain has learned the lessons of Iraq, but it’s in danger of over learning them. The alternative to grand interventions should not be simply inaction." He suggests that Britain make an international campaign against chemical weapons its central priority.
He further says Britain should increase the scale and quality of humanitarian assistance to refugees in Domiz and elsewhere. Amen to that. The need to provide succour to the Syrian people is paramount.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment