Britain
prides itself on being a liberal state, tolerant of diverse points of
view with a judicial system based on law and evidence, but its recent
behavior has been anything but that.
by
Alexander Mercouris
Part
3 - Sidestepping Parliament on Syria
If the
handling of the Skripal case is troubling enough, the British
government’s decision to involve Britain in Washington’s recent
military strike against Syria is arguably more troubling still.
The
pretext of the strike is an alleged chemical weapons attack which the
Syrian authorities are alleged to have carried out against the
rebel-held town of Duma, which is located in the East Ghouta area
near Damascus.
The site
of the alleged attack has since been secured by the Syrian and
Russian militaries. Syria and Russia have both invited inspectors
from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
to inspect the site to establish whether or not a chemical weapons
attack actually took place.
Yet
notwithstanding that the OPCW was about to launch an investigation,
which would have involved a site visit, and despite overwhelming
opposition from the British public, only 20 percent of whom favoured
a strike, the strike nonetheless took place with full British
participation and without the British parliament being consulted in
advance.
Moreover
the British government made little secret that its decision to break
convention and disregard Parliament was because it knew in advance
that it would lose a vote if the decision to participate in the
strike was ever put to one.
Here
something must be said about that strange British creature, the
“constitutional convention.”
Though
such conventions do not in theory have the force of law in Britain,
since Britain’s constitution (unlike the U.S. constitution) is
largely unwritten, they are almost invariably treated as if they did.
Any
British government that on a question of war or peace deliberately
violates the convention that Parliament should be consulted in
advance before any decision is taken would, if the British political
system were working properly, be in serious trouble (especially if it
knew it would have lost the vote.)
Not so
in this case. British reporting of the Syria strike was strictly
circumscribed, so much so, that publicly questioning the claim that a
chemical weapons attack took place or arguing that nothing should be
done before the OPCW completes its investigation, or that Parliament
should have been consulted before a military action, rendered one,
like in the Skripal case, a “useful idiot,” “conspiracy
theorist” or Kremlin stooge.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment