Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Ed Miliband: "I'm determined we learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq"
A Commons vote on the UK's response to a chemical attack near Damascus hangs in the balance, after Labour demanded "compelling evidence" of Syria's guilt.
MPs had been due to vote on whether the UK should launch an attack against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
But David Cameron was forced to back down after Labour said it wanted to wait for UN inspectors to report first.
Labour could still vote against a watered-down motion on the "principle" of launching military action.
Mr Cameron was not confident of gaining the backing of MPs for military action without Labour's support, as a number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs were expected to rebel.
'Compelling evidence'Labour leader Ed Miliband has said he wants to see more evidence President Assad's regime carried out the chemical attack and does not want the UK to be pushed into action by an "artificial" timetable.
The UK government will shortly publish a summary of its position on the legality of intervention in Syria.
"Start Quote
End QuoteObama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday - If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him"
Its Commons motion will be debated later by MPs, who have been recalled from their summer holidays to decide on whether the UK should join in with any allied military action against the Assad regime.
The government's motion states that a final vote on military action should now be held only after UN inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons - which Assad's regime blames on opposition fighters.
Labour is also planning to table its own amendment, saying that there must be "compelling evidence" that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons.
Mr Milband has said he wants to "learn the lessons of Iraq" by giving UN weapons inspectors time to present the evidence.
He has yet to decide whether Labour will back the government's motion paving the way for military action if his party's motion is voted down, raising the prospect of a damaging defeat for Mr Cameron.
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said it was "without modern precedent for a prime minister to lose control of his foreign policy, let alone decisions about peace and war".
'Prudent measure'But Foreign Secretary William Hague said the government was keen to proceed "on a consensual basis" and the prime minister recognised "the deep concerns in this country over what happened over Iraq".
On Wednesday, the UK presented the UN with a draft resolution authorising "necessary measures" to protect Syrian civilians.
US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday his country was certain the Assad regime was responsible for the attack - though he also said he had not made a decision on a military strike.
UN weapons inspectors are expected to leave Damascus on Saturday before presenting their evidence to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon
This means a second parliamentary vote on British involvement in military action would probably not happen until at least early next week, meaning the UK may not be able to take part in expected US missile strikes.
In other developments:
The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the government will not publish the attorney general's advice on whether military intervention would be legal - something Green MP Caroline Lucas says is "deeply unacceptable".
Instead it will publish a summary of the government's position on its legality, along with a document written by the joint intelligence committee analysing "open source material" - including videos - of the attack near Damascus on 21 August.
MPs will debate the government's motion from 14:30 BST (13:30 GMT) with a vote not expected until 22:00 BST (21:00 GMT). The House of Lords will also debate the motion but will not vote.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the government was seeking "to make the case for a simple, limited response" to the use of chemical weapons, arguing it would be a "fateful decision" if the West did not act.
"It is much more likely that Assad will use chemical weapons more frequently, in a more widespread way if nothing happens," he said.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
He denied the government was seeking a mandate for unlimited intervention in Syria's conflict.
The government motion states "this House deplores the use of chemical weapons" by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, and says a response "may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons".
Models for possible intervention
- Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait
- Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures"
- Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out
- Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi
Labour's amendment states it would "only support military action involving UK forces" if various conditions were met - including "the production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons".
Mr Cameron will open the Commons debate and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will close it.
A meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on Wednesday discussed the UK's draft resolution and talks are expected to continue for several days.
The resolution condemns the use of chemical weapons and demands that the regime of President Assad cease to use such weapons.
The security council, which meets whenever peace is threatened, is made up of 15 members, including permanent members China, Russia, France, the US and the UK.
Previous efforts to secure action against President Assad have been vetoed by Russia and China.
Syria has accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.
The Speaker of the Syrian Parliament has written to Commons Speaker John Bercow inviting a parliamentary delegation to Damascus to check the UN's conclusions.
The letter added that Syria will sue those responsible in British courts if the UK attacks - which it said would be an "aggressive and unprovoked act of war".
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Labour could still vote no on Syria
Dengan url
http://cangkirtehhangat.blogspot.com/2013/08/labour-could-still-vote-no-on-syria.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Labour could still vote no on Syria
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Labour could still vote no on Syria
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar