[D66] British parliament votes down Syria action as US presses ahead with strike plans

[Nord]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/30/pers-a30.html

British parliament votes down Syria action as US presses ahead with 
strike plans
By Chris Marsden and Julie Hyland
30 August 2013

In a stunning setback for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition 
government of Prime Minister David Cameron and the Obama administration 
in the US, Britain’s MPs voted down a government attempt to secure 
agreement in principle for military intervention in Syria.

Cameron is deeply wounded, his future as Conservative Party leader 
uncertain. As for the Obama administration and its European allies, 
their war drive against Syria has been discredited and exposed as a 
criminal conspiracy hatched in the recesses of the CIA, MI5, Mossad, and 
other intelligence agencies. They seized upon a chemical attack in 
Ghouta most likely carried out by the US-backed insurgents themselves as 
a casus belli—the opportunity to activate a plan for regime change in 
Syria aimed at isolating Iran and securing US hegemony over the oil 
riches of the Middle East.

The White House indicated Thursday that it was planning to push ahead 
with a bombing campaign regardless. The New York Times reported Thursday 
night that “administration officials made clear that the eroding support 
would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike… all 
indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations 
investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the 
country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.”

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said, “President 
Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests 
of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake 
for the United States and that countries who violate international norms 
regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”

The US military has moved a fifth destroyer to the Mediterranean Sea, 
equipped with cruise missiles that would be used in any attack on Syria.

Should the US push ahead with the war in defiance of the vote in 
parliament and of overwhelming popular opposition in Britain, the United 
States, and internationally, it would be the most brazen act of 
international gangsterism since the epoch of Hitler.

Military strikes could quickly lead to a regional and even global 
conflict. Iran has threatened to respond by attacking Israel, and on 
Wednesday Russia sent its own warships to the Mediterranean Sea.

Already on Wednesday, the Cameron government had been forced to retreat 
from its plan to make yesterday’s recalled vote in parliament an 
explicit sanctioning of military action. The opposition Labour Party had 
decided to refuse to back a military assault before the United Nations 
Security Council had heard back from chemical weapon inspectors in Syria 
and been allowed to vote on their findings. There were also signs of a 
mounting backbench rebellion by Conservatives.

Cameron recalled parliament yesterday, as the UN Security Council met to 
vote on a UK resolution “authorising all necessary measures to protect 
civilians” in Syria, with the intention of placing maximum pressure on 
Russia and China—or at least contrasting a positive vote for 
intervention by parliament with their having blocked any UN action. In 
the event, neither Britain’s UN Security Council resolution nor the 
parliamentary vote went in Cameron’s favor.

Throughout the day, there was a growing mood of panic in the Cameron 
government, as it became clear that they had no evidence to substantiate 
British and US government claims that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad 
was responsible for a poison gas attack in Ghouta.

Cameron was left floundering, seeking to justify his war plans. While 
claiming, for example, that it was “beyond doubt” that the Assad regime 
was guilty of the chemical attack in Damascus, he said in the next 
breath that “there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible.”

Ultimately, the government lost by 285 votes to 272. An amendment moved 
by Labour placing a number of conditions to be met before any military 
intervention was defeated, 332 votes to 220, but in the end it was a 
Conservative revolt that defeated the government.

Significantly, Labour leader Ed Miliband asked for an assurance that 
Cameron would not use the royal prerogative to start military 
intervention without parliamentary approval. A shaken Cameron replied, 
“I can give that assurance… it is clear to me that the British 
parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to 
see British military action.”

Labour did the bare minimum that could have been expected of a bourgeois 
opposition party under such circumstances, urging the government to 
abide by international protocols and wait for the results of a UN 
investigation. Miliband even described his amendment as a “roadmap” to 
help make a decision on war, making clear Labour would support military 
intervention if its conditions were met—including in the event of 
divisions on the UN Security Council.

The response from the government was nevertheless vicious. Downing 
Street declared that the Labour leader was giving “succor” to the Assad 
regime. An unnamed adviser described Miliband in Murdoch’s Times with 
the crudest expletives.

Such language speaks to the fascistic character of the government’s 
personnel, which are recruited from a criminal political underworld 
seeking to plunge the world into wars of colonial conquest.

The Cameron government clearly anticipated initially that it could serve 
as a loyal toady of the Obama administration. However, it badly 
miscalculated in underestimating the scale of public opposition to war.

The action by by Labour and leading Conservatives, headed by former 
Cameron challenger, David Davies, to vote against Cameron expresses deep 
divisions within the ruling class over the Syria operation. Above all 
else, the plans for war against Syria still lie under the long shadow 
cast by the 2003 war against Iraq. Opinion polls show estimates ranging 
from just six to 11 percent in support of missile strikes on Syria. With 
the toxic political legacy of Iraq hanging over them like the sword of 
Damocles, both Labour and the Conservative rebels were unable to sign 
off on military action on the basis of yet another transparent 
concoction of lies.

There was also concern, even among the Conservatives, over the 
implications of starting a war in Syria, which would quite likely 
spreading throughout the entire Middle East, without any popular support.

Interventions have been made by leading retired diplomatic, political 
and military figures, including General Lord Richard Dannatt, the former 
head of the British Army and Cameron’s former military adviser. Speaking 
in the House of Lords yesterday, Dannatt said British service personnel 
should not be forced to fight a war without public support.

Dissident Conservatives were far from enthusiasts of the UN, but some 
warned against alienating Russia and China. Most warned against 
supporting a war based on unsubstantiated allegations that the Assad 
regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.

Underlying such concerns are deeper fears that war against Syria would 
end by bringing to power Islamic fundamentalists affiliated with Al 
Qaeda—as was the outcome in Libya—and would destabilize the entire 
Middle East.

Several MPs drew a direct analogy with events leading up to the First 
World War. A letter to British MPs sent by Jihad Allaham, Speaker of the 
Syrian People’s Assembly, made a direct appeal on this basis. Denying 
responsibility for the Damascus attack, it warned against “an aggressive 
and unprovoked act of war,” adding: “By attacking and weakening Syrian 
targets and institutions, you would automatically strengthen our common 
enemy, Al Qaida and its affiliates.”

Invoking the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, which 
became the spark for World War I, Allaham warned: “Local tragedies 
become regional wars that explode into global conflict…”

The case for supporting war was made more, not less, difficult by the 
efforts of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee and the legal advice 
of Attorney General Dominic Grieve, both of which echoed the lies used 
to justify the Iraq war.

The JIC’s brief concluded that it was “highly likely” that Assad’s 
regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attack. However, it cited 
only “open source” evidence such as video footage, the provenance of 
which is disputed, and the claim that the opposition does not have the 
capability to launch such an attack. Grieve’s advice simply asserted 
that, based on a “responsibility to protect”, Britain could participate 
in military action without UN authorisation.