Cameron is Blameless. Parliament Voted 'No' to Unrepentant Tony
Blair (Le Monde, France)
"It wasn't David Cameron who was defeated. Rather, it was
payback to Tony Blair, as Mr. Cameron himself acknowledged during the debate,
noting 'the well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq
episode.' ... History has a way of flowing - in a democracy, at least - and choosing
the moment for the exercise of expiation: this was the people, through their
elected representatives, striking back at the government that deceived them."
Unrepentent over Iraq: Former President George W. Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Have the pair poisoned the very notion of military action - even when it is called for?
He
left office on June 27, 2007, after ten years in power. He doesn't envisage returning
to the national political scene. He spends tranquil days on philanthropic
missions and managing his fortune. Nevertheless, it was against Tony Blair that
members of the House of Commons voted on the evening of Thursday, August 29.
It
is the trauma of the Iraq episode, into which the former Labour
prime minister led his country in 2003, that explains the "no" by the
British Parliament to action in Syria. It wasn't David Cameron, current leader
of the conservative-liberal coalition, who was defeated. Rather, it was payback
to Tony Blair, as Mr. Cameron himself acknowledged during the debate, noting
"the well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq
episode."
History
has a way of flowing - in a democracy, at least - and choosing the moment for
the exercise of expiation: this was the people, through their elected
representatives, striking back at the government that deceived them. That is all.
By
a vote of 285 to272, British lawmakers rejected
the motion on Syria presented by Mr. Cameron. The prime minister advocated a
"targeted " action against the Damascus regime. He sought to punish Bashar al-Assad's forces for their use of chemical weapons.
All
members of Labour, followed by dozens of
conservatives, asked Mr. Cameron to "take account of the lessons of
Iraq." The prime minister said he would abide by the wishes of the House:
there will be no British participation in missile strikes on Syria.
Washington
said that the decision of the United Kingdom - its privileged ally with the "special
relationship" - would not prevent the United States from intervening. This
cannot help but embarrass Paris - even if, officially, the position of France
is that it would be impossible not to react to the use of chemical weapons.
As
it is in the United States and France, the Commons' vote reflects the sentiment
of the public. It seems that the British, habitually no slouches when it comes
to the wars their country enters, are still suffering from the Iraqi syndrome.
Blair
led the United Kingdom into the Iraq invasion on the basis of manipulated information.
It was a question of toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein for possessing an
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ... which did not exist. The war was
conducted without U.N. Security Council authorization. And as we know, the
adventure turned out badly.
Blair
has never acknowledged error for his part in the episode. In failing to do so, public
opinion has maintained a sense that the mistake has not been purged, that wrongdoing
has not been punished. In short, that we have learned nothing from the episode.
So
despite the fact that the situation in Syria has little to do with its Iraqi
precedent, public opinion is suspicious and skeptical. It demands evidence - which
there is!; it wants guarantees of a limited engagement; it wants a path to an international
green light.
The
issue isn't military: Washington doesn't need London or Paris. The issue is
political. How to respond to the use of a weapon of mass destruction?
