Submitted by: Sandra
UK Prime Minister Cameron loses Syria war vote
GREGORY KATZ, AP
A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote
that "the British Parliament, reflecting the
views of the British people, does not want to
see British military action."
The prime minister said that while he still
believed in a "tough response" to the alleged
use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime, he
would respect the will of Parliament.Responding to the vote, the White House said that a decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America's best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won't help.
The defeat was as dramatic as it was
unexpected. At the start of the week, Cameron
had seemed poised to join Washington in
possible military action against Assad. The
suspected chemical weapons attacks took place
Aug. 21 in suburbs east and west of Damascus.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders
has said the strikes killed 355 people.
Gruesome images of sickened men, women and children writhing on the floor drew outrage from across the world, and Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer break for an emergency vote, which was widely seen as a prelude to international action.
"The video footage illustrates some of the
most sickening human suffering imaginable,"
Cameron told lawmakers before the vote,
arguing that the most dangerous thing to do
was to "stand back and do nothing."
But the push for strikes against the Syrian
regime began to lose momentum as questions
were raised about the intelligence
underpinning the move. During a debate with
lawmakers, he conceded that there was still a
sliver of uncertainty about whether Assad
truly was behind the attacks.
"In the end there is no 100 percent certainty
about who is responsible," Cameron said,
although he insisted that officials were still
as "as certain as possible" that Assad's
forces were responsible.
That was not enough for Britain's Labour
Party, which is still smarting from its
ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of
Iraq in 2003. The party announced its
opposition to the move despite Cameron's
concessions, which included a promise to give
U.N. inspectors time to report back to the
Security Council and to do his outmost to
secure a resolution there.
He also promised to give lawmakers a second
vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain
was being rushed into an attack.
Cameron's impassioned pleas and hours of
debate failed to dispel lingering suspicions
that what was billed as a limited campaign
would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire, and
the prime minister lost the late-night vote
285-272. Some lawmakers shouted: "Resign!"
Tony Travers, the director of the government
department at the London School of Economics,
said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he
brought Parliament back early from its summer
recess. He said the move had been unpopular
even within Cameron's Conservative Party.
"Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it
suggests he got the politics wrong, both with
the opposition and with some members of his
own party," Travers said. "It's not great,
it's not brilliant, nor is it the end of the
world for him. He's lost votes before. It
doesn't necessarily stop them taking further
action, but they are going to have to start
again really."
He said there was "not a lot" of public
support for British military activity in
Syria.
Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed
that British forces would not be involved in
any potential strike, something he said would
doubtless upset Washington — and please Assad.
"It is certainly going to place some strain
on the special relationship," Hammond told BBC
radio. "The Americans do understand the
parliamentary process that we have to go
through.... Common sense must tell us that the
Assad regime is going to be a little bit less
uncomfortable tonight as a result of this
decision in Parliament."
No comments:
Post a Comment