and Question of the US impending war on Syria.
I commend the British House of Commons for defeating the Government’s Motion to support the US planned military intervention in Syria. The said motion is defeated by 285 to 272 votes.
As aptly reported by the Press TV:
“During a heated parliamentary debate on Thursday, Respect Bradford West MP George Galloway delivered a fiery speech against a motion by Prime Minister David Cameron to authorize a military action against Syria.
“The British lawmaker cited a Daily Telegraph report indicating that a definite majority of people in the UK are opposed to the country’s involvement in a potential war on the Arab country.
“Galloway further argued that there is “no compelling” evidence that the Syrian government has launched a chemical attack in the fight against the foreign-backed Takfiri groups.”
The Respect Bradford West MP said passionately that:
“To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a Unite Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness”.
He further stated that everyone knows the Assad regime is bad enough to use chemical weapons, but the question is: “Are they mad enough to do it?”
The rebel MP’s crucial question is undeniably in point:
“Did they really launch a chemical weapons attack on the day UN inspectors were arriving in Damascus.”
Clearly, according to him, the “narrative” has changed, now England is keen on regime change on Syria with the connivance of the US and they are for two years now trying to topple the government in Damascus — without any success!
Thereupon, he also hit at his country’s hypocrisy:
“If Assad was that bad, why did Britain invite him to stay at Buckingham Palace? Why did one prime minister propose him for a knighthood? And why was he praised as a moderniser?
“Because governments have looked at the opposition. The rebels include people who eat human flesh, and saw the heads off their opponents.”
Another admirable aspect of the said rebel MP’s stirring speech is the fact that he inserted in his condemnation of the impending war on Syria to that of the silence, bias and hypocrisy of his nation with regard to the barbarism, injustices and mass murder being committed by Israel to the Palestinians!
As he sharply stated:
“No one in the Commons has criticised Israel for its illegal settlements.”
What does the historical vote of the House of Commons means for England?
I concur substantially to some of Andrew Sparrow’s “MPs vote down military intervention in Syria: Politics live blog, The Guardian”, August 30th, that:
1. Britain will not be attacking Syria.
I just hope that after this humiliating defeat for the British neo-cons and imperialists, they will no longer force the issue and just accept the will of their citizens and their people.
2. The “special relationship” has just become less special.
I doubt if Obama and his gang of mass murderers ever expected this outcome, yet even on the face of this historic vote which clearly isolates US from UK, Obama says that they will act unilaterally against Syria. Though, England is no longer a member of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing”, nonetheless America still has France. Yet, let us clarify our terms, when we speak of France with regard to this issue, I am referring to the French government and not to the French people! This Obama is not only a hypocrite, but also the number one mass murderer. I completely agree with an independent Irish MP, Clare Daly especially when she categorically stated that:
“Of course, the biggest irony of all, the protestations of Obama himself in his speech to children in Northern Ireland about peace, when he said, ‘those who choose the path of peace, I promise you, that the United States of America will support you every step of the way. We will always be the wind at your back.’
“Now, I ask you, is this person going for the hypocrite of the century award?”
“Because we have to call things by their right names, and the reality is that by any serious examination, this man is a war criminal. He has just announced his decision to supply arms to the Syrian opposition, including the jihadists, fuelling the destabilization of that region and continuing to undermine secularism and knock back conditions for women.”
3. Britain is becoming less imperialist and more European. This is probably the most important lesson to be learnt from tonight’s vote.
I agree that indeed, this is the most important lesson! England in a way is now renouncing its imperialism and now subscribing to the true international law! It seems also to me that they are now recognizing the existence of other nations in the world.
Again, as the Respect MP categorically asked: if you cannot persuade the United Nation Security Council with regard to your view — who are you on the other side to determine what is “international law”, what the desire of the “international community” and to declare what should be the “international community” must do?
Since when did Russia and China cease to be a member of the international community?
“Russia and China say no to war in Syria, so do I, so do most people in this country.”
4. Parliament matters more. Technically prime ministers do not need the support of the Commons to go to war. Sending troops into action is a prerogative power (meaning it can happen just on the prime minister’s say so).
Be that as if may, after the Iraq fiasco, I doubt if there is any Prime Minister who has the galls to by-pass Parliament and completely ignore it!
As Neil Clark in “Britain’s parliament finally turns against the neo-cons and serial warmongers”, RT (Question More), August 30th, said:
“These serial warmongers told us that ‘something must be done’ in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, producing no evidence to back up their claims that the Syrian government was responsible. But this time- unlike in the cases of Kosovo, Iraq and Libya- they’ve not been listened to. And the neo-cons and ‘liberal interventionists’, who trumpet so loudly their commitment to spreading ‘democracy’ around the globe, are not very happy at this wonderful and long overdue sign of a democratic resurgence in Britain. A newspaper poll showed that just 8% of Britons wanted immediate weapons strikes on Syria, but despite that the ‘Democracy by Bombs’ brigade are condemning yesterday’s vote as a black day for democracy. Oh, the irony!”
Now that the people’s will is clear and triumphed through their representative, I am hoping that the British Prime Minister will fulfill the promise that he stated at the House after he was humiliated and rebuffed, not only by the British people, but worst, even by his own partymates:
“British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly.”
The power of the people
I overwhelmingly concur with Tim Wall’s “Little Britain: The mouse that (finally) roared”, RT (Question More), August 30th in their analysis that:
“The parliamentary rebellion against Cameron and Obama came as a big surprise to just about everyone in mainstream UK politics, mainly because it was not organized by any of the main political parties. It came, rather, from the grassroots of society – ordinary people who lobbied their MPs before Thursday’s vote, and from the legacy of protests against the Iraq war.”
Hence, it is the people themselves who decided against the war.
Now that the British public has decided to do the right thing, I am wondering how the American, the French and even the German people will decide the question of Syria! Will they also bombard with emails and letters their representatives? Will they also pressure and make it known to their congressmen and senators their vehement opposition to any military action?
The whole world is waiting and watching!
College of Arts and Letters
Polytechnic University of the Philippines