LONDON—British Prime Minister David Cameron’s failure to secure parliamentary support for military action in Syria unleashed a national soul-searching over the U.K.’s role on the world stage and its ties to the country’s closest ally, the U.S.
Mr. Cameron suffered one of the biggest foreign-policy defeats by a British prime minister in modern times when he miscalculated his ability to win lawmakers’ support for military intervention in Syria. Parliament voted late Thursday against a government motion on the principle of intervening in Syria, where Britain and other Western governments have said President Bashar al-Assad’s regime carried out a deadly chemical-weapons attack on civilians on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.
U.K. Parliament’s vote against action in Syria makes it more difficult for President Obama to convince the public of the need for it. Also, in the U.S., Congress is likely unable to block U.S. action. Cassell Bryan-Low and Peter Landers report. Photo: Getty Images.
The defeat kicked the door open to a debate about whether it marks the dawn of an era of isolationism for Britain. Many foreign policy experts say that is unlikely, but some say it could be a watershed in a shift to a less interventionist British foreign policy, as a result of weariness in the British public of involvement in conflict in the Middle East.
“We may see the U.K. returning to a level of participation of intervention significantly less than it has been in the past couple of decades,” said Malcolm Chalmers, director of research at London think tank Royal United Services Institute and who has served as an adviser to two Labour foreign secretaries.
But some political watchers attribute the vote outcome at least partly to Mr. Cameron’s handling of the process. Some politicians—including from his own Conservative Party—say he was premature in going to Parliament and should have waited until he could make a clearer-cut case that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.
Mr. Cameron said he regretted that he’d been unable to build a political consensus, and reiterated that the U.K. now won’t take part in military action. Speaking in a broadcast television interview Friday, he said a “robust response” was still needed to the alleged use of chemical weapons and that the U.K. would continue to pursue diplomatic channels.
U.S. President Barack Obama during a call Friday with Mr. Cameron said he appreciated the prime minister’s situation and that he hadn’t yet taken a decision on the U.S. response, according to Downing Street.
“The president stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the prime minister,” Downing Street said in a statement. “They agreed that their co-operation on international issues would continue in the future and both reiterated their determination to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict by bringing all sides together.”
Related Articles
In Depth
Mr. Cameron said the U.K., which has the world’s fourth-largest military in terms of spending and one of the largest diplomatic networks, will remain a significant player on the world stage. On this specific issue, the British public were concerned about being “sucked into” the Syrian conflict and “I understand that,” said Mr. Cameron.
British Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to hit a snag in his ability to commit the U.K. to immediate military action in Syria, an early sign of the pushback Western governments may face from the public. Cassell Bryan-Low joins Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.
The parliamentary defeat was an unusual event in British politics, marking the first loss of a war-related vote by a British prime minister since at least the mid-nineteenth century, according to Philip Cowley at the University of Nottingham.
The U.K.’s international standing “has been diminished,” said Conservative politician Nadhim Zahawi, who had strongly backed Mr. Cameron’s bid for a military response to Syria. Mr. Zahawi said the prime minister was right to listen to parliament but that “the world will be looking at us today and thinking has the U.K. changed course? Is it now going to follow a different policy of isolationism?”
Former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown echoed those comments. The U.K. is edging toward isolationism and is now “hugely diminished country,” he said on Twitter.
But Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chair of the cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, said such talk is exaggerated, noting the U.K.’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council and leading role in NATO, among other things. “In the short term it is an embarrassment and a setback, but it’s not terminal,” said Mr. Ottoway, who had voted for Mr. Cameron’s motion Thursday.
In Britain, there was particular focus on what the impact would be on ties to the U.S. It marks one of the biggest instances of divergence in British and American foreign policy since the 1956 Suez Crisis, when the U.S. pressed the U.K. and France to withdraw their forces, and Britain’s refusal to enter the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
Some specialists—including U.K. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, a Conservative politician—said the U.K.’s failure to participate in any military action in Syria will put a strain on the relationship with the U.S.
Richard Whitman, a politics professor at the University of Kent, said it marks the continuation of an existing trend of the U.S. increasingly looking to other allies amid a perception in Washington that Britain is retreating on its international engagement as well as military capacity, due to hefty defense-spending cuts. On top of that are American concerns about whether the current debate in the U.K. about whether to loosen ties with Europe will impact Britain’s outward-facing role, said Mr. Whitman.
Mr. Chalmers, of think tank RUSI, said he thought the next few weeks in trans-Atlantic relations would be awkward with embarrassing moments for British leaders having to explain what happened. But he said he didn’t believe it would necessarily result in a fundamental change in Anglo-U.S. ties, in part because the U.S. public is similarly suffering war exhaustion in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan and Mr. Obama himself has been reluctant to intervene in Syria.
Among those critical of Mr. Cameron’s handling of the vote was Conservative lawmaker Philip Hollobone, who voted against the government motion. He said he believed Mr. Cameron approached the issue with honorable intentions but that the vote in parliament was “rushed.”
Some academics and politicians said Mr. Cameron’s authority had been damaged as a result and could set the Conservatives further back behind the main opposition Labour Party in opinion polls. Still, some noted that the next general election—due in 2015—will likely be decided on other issues, such as the economy and health care.
Write to Cassell Bryan-Low at cassell.bryan-low@wsj.com and Nicholas Winning at nick.winning@dowjones.com
A version of this article appeared August 30, 2013, on page A7 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: U.K.’s Role Questioned After Cameron’s Setback.
Visit link: U.K.’s International Clout Questioned
沒有留言:
張貼留言