UK Commons Motion on Syria Defeated.

In the last hour or so the UK government's motion on military action against Syria that can be read here; http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/the-full-text-of-the-governments-motion-on-syria/ has been defeated by a margin of 13 votes with 272 votes in favour and 285 votes against. There were 93 abstentions apparently including two Conservative Party who accidentally missed the vote because they were called away to meetings.

In response to what has been an embarrassing defeat the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the result shows that; "The British Parliament reflecting the will of the British people do not wish to see British military action." However this is not the same as saying that there will be no military action against Syria. Firstly under the UK's unwritten constitution the military remains the property of the Monarch rather than the people. As a result the Monarch has the prerogative to send the military to war without the consent of the people. However if the Monarch were to attempt to exercise that prerogative the UK would be looking at its most serious constitutional crisis in some 300 years and possibly another civil war. Secondly and perhaps more relevantly the UK Parliament has not voted against military action against Syria it has merely rejected this particular motion calling for military. There is nothing to stop the government on recalling Parliament to vote on another motion tomorrow.

What is interesting is that just before rejecting the government's motion the House of Commons also rejected the Labour Party's amendment by a margin of 112 votes with 220 votes in favour, 332 against and 98 abstentions. This amendment would have of course required the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to vote on the UN inspectors report before the UK Parliament voted on another motion on military action against Syria. So while there were clearly Members of Parliament (MP's) who voted with their consciences and principles I detect the distinct whiff of the Conservative Party whips purposefully sinking this motion in order to clear the way for another motion as quickly as possible. Parliament reconvenes in normal session at the start of next week.

What appears to have changed is that during the 8 hour debate the UN inspection team have indicated that their preliminary report will be available for discussion by the UNSC on Saturday (31/8/13). The rumour is that this report will detail the discovery of Grad-style rocket parts which test positive for Sarin gas and have serial numbers linking them to the Syrian military. Although the UN inspection team is not mandated to draw any conclusion as to who was responsible for the August 21st (21/8/13) Sarin gas attack in Jobar supporters of the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) will immediately hold these up as conclusive proof that the Syrian government is responsible. They of course will be hoping that we all gloss over tiny little details like Sarin gas coats most things it comes into contact with and the former head of the Syrian army's chemical weapons division is I believe now a General in the SQIA.

In preparation for these fresh calls for military action against Syria Rwanda has today accused the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) of shelling its territory. The government of the DRC has responded by accusing Rwanda of shelling the DRC and its own territory in order to discredit the DRC. This issue will reach the UNSC firstly because Rwanda is currently a member of the UNSC. Secondly in order to protect the people of the DRC from the M23 rebels who are widely believed to be supported by Rwanda the UN is currently engaged in a peacekeeping mission in the DRC. This peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO) is controversial because it is the first time that a UN peacekeeping mission has been mandated to take offensive military action against designated groups rather then just acting to keep warring parties apart. Therefore the intention seems to be to raise pressure on the UN to allow the UK to take unilateral military action against Syria by comparing MONUSCO's mandate with the UN doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" that the UK is trying to invoke to justify military action against Syria without a UNSC mandate. See previous post here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-uks-legal-position-on-syria.html for lots of tedious detail on R2P.

Although there are vast differences between the MONUSCO mission and what the UK is trying to attempt in Syria any comparison will fail for two main reasons. Firstly M23 and other groups routinely use rape as a weapon of war against civilians in the DRC. Rape is one of the offences listed in the 1998 Rome Statute as a possible crime against humanity. As for how widespread this activity is in the DRC the last report I read on the subject estimated it as occurring four times every minute meaning that it is far from an isolated or sporadic event. Secondly MONUSCO has a mandate from the UNSC. I believe the UK raised reservations.

(Originally Posted) 23:20 on 29/8/13.