British Rejection of Syria Action Reflects Evidence Concerns
By STEVEN ERLANGER and STEPHEN CASTLE
The parliamentary defeat that led Prime Minister David Cameron to rule
out military participation in any strike reflected fears of rushing to
act without certain evidence.
Mohammad Abdullah/Reuters
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
United Nations inspectors looked for evidence of chemical attacks on Thursday in the Damascus suburb of Zamalka.
LONDON — The stunning parliamentary defeat 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
United Nations inspectors looked for evidence of chemical attacks on Thursday in the Damascus suburb of Zamalka.
LONDON — The stunning parliamentary defeat 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.
Damascus without certain evidence.
Multimedia
Related
-
Document: British Intelligence Assessment
Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
-
Fears Growing as Syrians Wait for U.S. Attack (August 30, 2013)
-
Syrian Lawmakers Warn Britain Over Military Strike (August 30, 2013)
-
Putin’s Silence on Syria Suggests His Resignation Over Intervention (August 29, 2013)
-
On Syria, a Drumbeat With Some Echoes of Iraq (August 29, 2013)
-
Key Questions on the Conflict in Syria (August 28, 2013)
Related in Opinion
-
Editorial: More Answers Needed on Syria (August 29, 2013)
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Protesters against military action in Syria gathered outside of Parliament in London on Thursday.
Bassam Khabieh/Reuters
United Nations inspectors prepared to collect samples
on Thursday from one of the sites of a chemical weapons attack in the
Damascus suburb of Zamalka.
Facundo Arrizabalaga/European Pressphoto Agency
Protesters against Western intervention in Syria outside Downing Street in London last week.
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, though without one, 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.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário