This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html

The article has changed 21 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 14 Version 15
Britain Rules Out Military Strike on Syria Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act
(about 3 hours later)
LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote by 13 votes on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response. 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.
It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad for reportedly using chemical weapons against civilians. 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.
Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in a short statement to Parliament afterward, Mr. Cameron said that he respected the will of Parliament and that it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action over Syria. “I get it,” he said. 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.
The government motion was defeated 285 to 272. 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.
As part of its efforts to win the vote, Britain had taken the unusual step of publishing an intelligence assessment on Thursday blaming the Syrian government for a deadly chemical onslaught last week that left hundreds of people dead. The British government also laid out legal reasoning arguing that striking Syria would be justified on humanitarian grounds, with or without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. 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.
Mr. Cameron sought to calm the dissent among lawmakers by signaling that Britain would await the findings of United Nations inspectors currently working in Syria, though their mandate is to establish whether and what chemical weapons were used, not to determine who had used them. And the resolution he offered Parliament on Thursday would simply have endorsed tough criticism of the government of Mr. Assad, but would not yet approve military action. But Parliament rejected even that. 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.
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, told reporters in Vienna that the inspectors would complete their work on Friday and report to him on Saturday. On Thursday, the inspectors traveled in a six-car convoy toward the Ghouta neighborhood for a third day of collecting evidence and samples, activists said, and were focusing on the Zamalka area. 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.
In its intelligence document, the British government gave its reasons for concluding that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks last week, citing an attached assessment by its Joint Intelligence Committee. 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.”
“It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale,” said the document, referring to chemical weapons. “The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.” 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.
But Mr. Cameron had to admit to lawmakers during the parliamentary debate that there was “no smoking piece of intelligence” proving culpability. 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 intelligence assessment said that “there is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the U.N. investigation team.” It added that permission to authorize the use of chemical weapons “has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders” but that “any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorization.” “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.”
Mr. Cameron insisted in the debate that if there was no response to the use of chemical weapons, there would be “nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again.” The Syrian leader was “testing the boundaries,” he added, while stressing that he was not pressing for full military intervention. 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.
One obstacle he faced was the shadow of events in 2003, when assurances from Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, had weapons of mass destruction proved to be inaccurate and a false pretext for war. 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.
The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Ed Miliband, argued in the debate that the country should “learn the lessons of Iraq, because people remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq.” Mr. Miliband said his party would vote against the government’s resolution because, while he did not oppose military action against Syria, he had yet to be persuaded by the evidence provided. That led one of Mr. Cameron’s officials to accuse Mr. Miliband of “flipping and flopping,” a charge rejected by a Labour spokesman as “frankly insulting.” 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.

Scott Sayare contributed reporting from Paris.

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.”