Cameron’s motion in support of British army assault on Syria defeated

On late Thursday 29 August 2013, the motion put forward by the British prime minister in support of the British strike against Syria has been defeated by 13 votes (285 against; 272 in favour).
Polls done throughout Britain consistently showed that the majority of white people are opposed to a British military strike against Syria.
Some members of parliament complained of the lack of a clear strategy and objectives. There are those who say the British should concentrate on delivering humanitarian aid in form of medicines, food, etc… but not in form of cruise missiles; Brittain should seek dialogue with Russia and China and seek UN approval.
There are those who are questioning the wisdom of changing a Syria that is friendly to Iran and Hezbollah into an Al Qaida’s Syria that is anti-West and anti-Christian.
There were no Chinese or Russians in the house of parliament to vote against the Cameron’s motion. They will vote in the UN Security Council when the inspectors present their report.
What are the consequences of this defeat?
The conservative and liberal democrat coalition government has been weakened.
It is part and parcel of the general crisis of imperialism marked by uncertainties. It is an expression of the crisis of British imperialism in particular, as has been world power.
It is a painful reminder that they are no longer the top predator dog in the world.
It is a blow to the status of the special relationship between Washington and London—a sign of things to come.
The House of Common has not voted against the government on any issue of war and peace since February 27, 1782, when politicians voted against further war with America. It led to the resignation of the prime minister Lord North and paved the way for the end of the American war of independence.
Thus is a serious blow to the authority and prestige of David Cameron, who a few days earlier ordered the Members of the Parliament to come back from their holiday to debate and vote on his proposal.
The fact that this defeat did not happen on the streets or at the hands of the people, but occurred in the house of common, the home of the British bourgeoisie, tells us that this is a contest between factions of the British bourgeoisie, strategically incapable to unite this time on their war of aggression against Syria.
Cameron has been criticised by senior members of his own part for rushing to join Obama’s war. The public criticises him because they think that country’s resources should be spent on the home front to improve public services, and there is definitely the legacy of Tony Blair who took Britain to war on the basis lies.
Lord Donnat, the former chief of the British army, said the UK had previously pulled back from intervening in Syria because the risks and consequences were too great and there were too many uncertainties.
Donnat said diplomatic activity should be renewed, particularly with improved talks with the Russians to bring some degree of unanimity within the UN Security Council.
Although this defeat temporarily deprives Obama of a key ally who usually follows the U.S. like a lap dog, this does not yet remove the British call for war.
What the bourgeoisie is asking for is the legality of the UN to be guaranteed.
Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition, does not rule out a military action himself and voted against David Cameron‘s motion.
George Galloway, member of the Respect party, gave a white left critique of the government that said “Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11 percent in public opinion?"
He says Assad would be "mad" to launch the gas attack. He says Western politicians used to host him in Buckingham Palace.
It is clear to African Internationalists that the world has been changing for a while, and that there is no force to stop the march of history. The British, having experienced the longest reign of imperialist rule knows something about the unstoppable social wind of change
They cannot see a rosy future for a diminished British imperialism; they are more concerned on how to hold on to what they got than to pursue the dynamics of conquest to enlarge the empire.
The weaknesses of white imperialism are good for the African revolution!
Victory to the Syrian Resistance!
Seize the time, get organised and deepen the crisis and uncertainties of British imperialism!
Build the African Socialist International


- Advertisement -spot_img

Support African Working Class Media!

More articles from this author

Palestinian resistance deepens the struggle against world status quo

For the vast majority of impoverished colonized people, Palestinian fighters are not terrorists, but anti-colonial forces fighting a national liberation war, just like the...

All out to African Liberation Day 2024!

Victory to the African Nation! Stop the Frame-up of the Uhuru 3! A call to the best sons and daughters of Africa! Act today to...

Congo’s cobalt and coltan minerals at the center of the “silent” genocide

When we say coltan and cobalt are at the center of the colonial mode of production, the bourgeoisie media obscures this reality by saying...

Similar articles

The African People’s Socialist Party calls for unity with Russia’s defensive war in Ukraine against the world colonial powers

On March 17, 2022, the African People's Socialist Party conducted a press conference featuring Chairman Omali Yeshitela, who put forward the official position of...

Fresh La Vwadezil’s ‘Mande Yo Pou Mwen’ justly criticizes oppressive powers for Haiti’s mass displacement

    HAITI—On March 17, 2021, singer-songwriter Fresh La—whose birth name is Donald Joseph and who is the lead singer of his band called “Vwadezil”—released a...

Cops Assassinate African Youth in Broad Daylight

The day after St. Petersburg police brutally executed Dominique, the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP), defenders of the African working class, called a news conference led by Director of Agitation and Propaganda (AgitProp) Akilé Anai.