The late Harold Wilson, Britain’s prime minister in the 1960s and 70s, was fond of saying, “a week is a long time in politics.” From my perspective, the past week has seen a lot of politics but no solutions to the tragic situation in Syria.
Last Thursday, Britain’s prime-minister, David Cameron, recalled Parliament. He sought consent: “To support military action in Syria that is legal, after consultation with the United Nations.” There is no legal requirement under English law for our chief executive to seek Parliament’s support to such action. In 1939, prime-minister Chamberlain declared war on Germany without recourse to Parliament.
However, Cameron, mindful of former PM, Tony Blair and his actions regarding Iraq, decided to seek approval. He laid hardly any ground work, he did not court his own MPs and he produced no hard evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability. Instead, he relied on the circumstantial evidence provided by the Americans. Having no hard evidence was akin to the so-called Dodgy Dossier produced to Parliament by Blair prior to the Iraq debate.
Ed Milliband, leader of the opposition, indicated to Cameron that he would support the motion, thus there was certainty it would pass. However, Cameron was blind-sided. Milliband changed his mind at the last minute. Why did he do this? Despite his high-flown position that it was too early to start military action, he played politics. He saw a chance to embarrass and defeat Cameron’s government. I hope this manoeuvre will come back to haunt him. He played politics with Syrian lives. Mind you, so did many Conservative MPs. Had they voted with their government, the Motion would have passed. The expression, “nest of vipers,” comes to mind.
In the debate, Cameron moved his ground by promising a second parliamentary vote before any final decision to commence military action was taken but this was defeated too. So, instead of having a Falklands moment to augment his government’s “success” for the 2015 General election, Cameron cannot join a coalition led by America to deal with the Syrian problem. Talking heads said the special relationship was damaged. Nonsense! The comment that made me laugh was, “we can no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.” The only way Cameron can do this is by standing on a four foot ladder!
On Friday, President Obama, realising he was virtually on his own with, possibly, the help of France, announced that any American military action in Syria would be limited and narrow. DC legislators saw the power exerted by Parliament and agitated for similar rights. Obama grabbed the opportunity with both hands. He was not obliged to do so. Under The War Powers Act, a president has the right to commit US forces under given circumstances such as we see in Syria.
However, Congress was giving him an exit. Having boxed himself into a corner with last years’ statement about red lines, Obama has to stick to his aggressive position. Were Congress not to approve military action, Obama would be off the hook. However, the longer action is delayed, the more problematic it becomes.
The Democrats have a majority in the Senate, whereas the House of Representatives is in Republican control. What would happen if each House voted on party lines? I assume, the motion would be defeated and Obama would no longer have the power to use US force. As he has shown little appetite for military intervention, he would be happy. But John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has decided to support Obama on this occasion. Of course he does because he has a win, win position. If military action succeeds, the Republicans can claim a healthy slice of the credit. If it fails, Obama will be blamed.
So while the West plays politics, what about Russia? This weekend, G20 meets under the chairmanship of President Putin. The latter wants to be seen as a statesman but his government’s position is out of step with the West. So, he sought to give himself wiggle room by saying that if there was cast iron, incontrovertible evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its people, he would support action sanctioned by a U N resolution.
There is rarely any such thing as “cast iron evidence” in these circumstances. I bet Putin is hoping the U N inspectors will not report on the use of chemical weapons until G 20 is over. Either way, he is playing politics too.
So, we are left with a humanitarian crisis as two million refugees have poured out of Syria to live in circumstances that are indescribable, not to mention potentially de-stabilising the region. We are left with the conundrum that Syria has been the scene of a chemical weapons strike with no proof thus far of who did it, unless you accept what the US President and his Secretary of State are saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment