By Elizabeth Piper
British Prime Minister Theresa May defended on Monday her decision to launch air strikes against Syria, answering criticism over her bypassing of parliament by saying lawmakers could now hold her to account.
May, who has regained confidence after winning support for her tough stance on Syria and Russia, said she was driven by the need to decide quickly on joining the United States and France in Saturday’s strikes, made in retaliation for a suspected gas attack.
Saying she had no doubt the “Syrian regime” was behind an attack which she called a “stain on humanity”, May told lawmakers she had acted in the national interest and refused to say whether she would seek their approval for further action.
“I’m absolutely clear that it is parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions and parliament will do so,” she told the House of Commons in a rowdy session that laid bare divisions over the military action. “But it is my responsibility as prime minister to make these decisions and I will make them.”
May has weathered months of doubt over her leadership due to rows over Brexit and an ill-judged decision to call an early election when her Conservative Party lost its parliamentary majority. She is now enjoying international support for her action in Syria and against Moscow over a nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy in Britain.
Still, she has had to tread carefully in parliament, where she now relies on a small Northern Irish party to get enough votes to pass legislation, and has worked hard to offer lawmakers, angry about being sidelined, time to discuss the Syrian action.
Ian Blackford, the leader of the opposition Scottish National Party in Westminster, was one of many who asked May why she had not recalled parliament for a vote, breaking with a convention dating back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“The prime minister leads a minority government,” he said. “It was perfectly possible for the house to have been recalled in advance, why was this not done?”
PRAISE
While some Conservatives also expressed their regret that she had bypassed parliament, May also enjoyed praise from others – one calling her a “real prime minister” by moving swiftly to support the joint air strikes.
Instead, it was the opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who drew jeers and shouts when he suggested that May had simply followed the orders of US President Donald Trump – something the British leader denied.
“We have not done this because President Trump asked us to, we have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do, and we are not alone,” May said to cheers.
But she avoided answering questions on whether parliament would be consulted on any further strikes and ignored demands by Corbyn for a War Powers Act to limit the government’s power to launch military action.
Britain has said there are no plans for future strikes against Syria. Foreign minister Boris Johnson, in Luxembourg, again said the strikes were not aimed at regime change in Syria, but rather designed to send a message.
May will be mindful of how military action can backfire. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s legacy was tainted by his decision to join the war against Iraq, especially after an inquiry concluded that the decision was based on flawed intelligence, while her predecessor, David Cameron, was damaged after losing a vote for strikes against Syria in 2013.
Opinion polls suggest that most Britons do not support military action, with one by Survation taken after the strikes were launched showing 40 per cent of the 2,060 people asked opposed the action. Some 36 per cent supported the strikes.
“She authorised military action with no mandate,” said one Conservative lawmaker on condition of anonymity. “If it’s a success, she wins. If not, she’s the one that will take the blame.”
25 Comments
Kevin Ingham
April 17, 2018 at 07:23Assad is a thoroughly nasty piece of work, but Putin has outmanoeuvred the West and in an attempt to increase Russian influence in the area has virtually guaranteed he stays in power
Incredibly enough people are questioning what’s the difference between being killed by chemical weapons or killed by other means. The answer is simple, chemical weapons are meant to do one thing, and one thing only- that is kill as many people as possible in as horrific a way as possible and it is totally indiscriminate- that is why it is banned under international law
The airstrikes were aimed at the places these weapons are being produced, they caused little or no casualties and did exactly what they were meant to do ie tell Assad and Putin that they can play whatever power games they like in Syria, but you don’t use chemical weapons to do so- seems fair enough to me
Γιώργος Τσούκαλος
April 17, 2018 at 09:52Whereas conventional warheads are designed to kill as few people as possible?
The refugee crisis started when certain countries started supporting regime change in Syria, for whatever fantasy reason they conjured up in their distorted world view.
If Assad goes, Syria will become a new Iraq post 2003, with all that it entails. Have you learned nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
And speaking of destabilisation until 2003, the Middle East was fairly stable (even if its human rights index was low). Since 2003 human rights violations have increased along with death toll, extremism, intolerance, tremendous instability and a massive exodus of the Christian communities of the Middle East. As far as I recall Russia had nothing to do with 2003…
Banjo
April 17, 2018 at 17:26You suggest leaving murdering tyrants to get on with their business…….. because someone else could be worse ?????
Γιώργος Τσούκαλος
April 17, 2018 at 19:20Pray tell what is the alternative to Mr Assad as things currently stand in Syria? Muslim Brotherhood? Al-Qaeda? ISIS?
Lev
April 17, 2018 at 13:09Actually it’s the other way around; chemical weapons discriminate against civilians:
– combatants are more likely to have protection ready against chemical weapons, unlike civilians
– chemical gases are heavier than air and hence the gas will form a layer close to the ground, making it especially dangerous to children, while taller adults are less affected
– chemical gases are likely to flow down to basements where civilians are sheltering, while combatants are more likely to occupy the high ground
Kevin Ingham
April 17, 2018 at 17:17you are right- my original post did not point out that chemical attacks are primarily designed to kill civilians with as little material/collateral damage as possible
Mr Magoo
April 16, 2018 at 22:42Two days later, May agrees to commons debate on Syria strike.
Ah yes, democracy brexit style.
Douglas
April 16, 2018 at 23:01Assad has now got the message but he can still kill his own people but not using Chemicals, nightmare for the Syrian people.
Banjo
April 16, 2018 at 22:22Why doesn’t May just tell parliament the real reason she didn’t consult them…… there was a job to be done and they can’t be trusted to do it. Rather too many lefty snowflakes amongst them.
Disruptive
April 16, 2018 at 23:07One of the jobs is to stop bloodshed in Yemen, but that’s Saudi’s backyard and weapons dealer May is happy to do whatever her clients are telling her. Not much difference from Assad, but he is at the moment the bad guy on duty.
Banjo
April 16, 2018 at 23:29That’s just the type of attitude I’m talking about.
You know full well that the PM isn’t an arms dealer , in fact the PM isn’t a dealer in anything at all. This daft lefty idea that the British government somehow has a manufacturing site and salesmen that waft around the world is not just stupid but deliberately misleading.
British firms are aloud to manufacture arms because it’s a free world , they sell them to whatever country the law allows.
NuffSaid
April 16, 2018 at 23:39Get over yourself. Theresa May and her government have the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians in their hands, it is the government that sanctions the export licenses for these arms. Saudi just happens to be preferred. You cannot be selective with your faux moral outrage.
Banjo
April 17, 2018 at 00:25You people are always barking up the wrong tree.
The use of chemical weapons is illegal , so it will be stopped, by force if necessary. If you want to stop the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia because they kill civilians with them , stop pissing and moaning about a prime minister and direct your objection at the law that allows it.
You people don’t have the sense to do that.
Disruptive
April 17, 2018 at 08:06Oh, it’s legal, so it’s fine. Jews were exterminated very legally in Nazi Germany, so that also must be fine…what an idiotic argument.
Banjo
April 17, 2018 at 08:55No fool. That would count as a chemical weapon.
Why can’t you understand this. Give your head a wobble.
Your pathetic rant at the PM is no more useful than this rant at me , if you want to stop any arms being sold to anyone , you’re going to need a law to do it. And it will need to be an international law. Now stop with your childish views.
Disruptive
April 17, 2018 at 09:18Your PM is as corrupt as her Russian or Syrian counterparts, so I will leave it at that.
Banjo
April 17, 2018 at 11:45Best you don’t talk about corruption when you’ve spent this whole conversation advocating for ignoring the law.
Disruptive
April 16, 2018 at 23:50Oh, she is not? What she was doing during her last meeting with Saudi king/prince/throne contender? Talking about flora and fauna of Gibraltar? The very same weapons that kills civilians in Yemen since 2015. If you want to use good old ‘free world’ BS, than Assad can also use any weapons as he probably bought it from his arms dealer, freely. Everything for the profit, doesn’t matter if innocent civilians are dying, just pull out of your behinds free world, democracy, human rights, whatever BS is convenient to cover shameless dealings. War criminals at large, every single one of your ‘leaders’.
Banjo
April 17, 2018 at 00:30The fact you can’t understand is that the weapons Assad uses are illegal , the ones sold to the Saudis are not. Does this help you focus to the job that’s needed. The licences you refer to are not granted on the whim of whoever is reading the applications that day. They are granted based on the relevant laws. Or do you think a PM sits in an office somewhere of a morning and makes up whatever laws we’ll use that day.
Disruptive
April 17, 2018 at 00:00“The number of open licences for weapons given to Saudi Arabia has increased considerably since Theresa May became Prime Minister, according to government figures analysed by Sky News.”
Disruptive
April 17, 2018 at 00:02“Since the start of the war in Yemen, the UK has approved arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth $6.3bn, including the sale of Tornado aircraft, tanks, armoured vehicles, grenades, missiles and bombs.
The Saudis already operate 72 Typhoons from a first batch of jets ordered in 2007, despite previous concerns raised by human rights groups and anti-war campaigners.
The fighter jets are considered the most advanced swing-role combat aircraft currently available and have a top speed of more than 1,500mph and carry a large number of missiles.”
Strong and stable.
Douglas
April 16, 2018 at 22:01I think the demonstrators were trying to tell Assad not to bomb his own people ?
Disruptive
April 16, 2018 at 17:38‘Strong and stable’.
NuffSaid
April 16, 2018 at 18:31Lol
costaskarseras
April 16, 2018 at 17:27It appears that Teresa May will have the same fate as that of the British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden who conspired with France and Israel to restore British/French control of the Suez Canal which was nationalised by the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The plan was for Israel to invade Egypt to provide a pretext for the two colonial powers to intervene by invading to keep Egypt and Israel apart in order to keep the canal open. However, he failed completely and was forced to resigned soon after the event.