Zimpapers Logo

David Cameron

They are the untouchables of the universe; bullies who mete their own form of justice on so ‘‘errant’’ states in the community of nations. They use every means possible to stamp their authority on dissenting voices, thus becoming a law unto themselves.
The Syrian crisis is once again showing how much Western powers – Britain and France led by the United States – are a threat to world peace and security. Not only are they abusing the United Nations, and showing disregard for other voices in the UN Security Council, but they have also demonstrated that they will not be bound by international laws and treaties to which they are signatories.
For some time now, the westerners have shown that they can abrogate their own constitutions.

This highest level of pride and arrogance, where leaders think that their credibility is more important than the well-being of the people, is costly. It has cost British prime minister David Cameron and it is also costing US president Barack Obama and French president Francois Hollande.

The humiliation that Cameron got in the House of Commons last week when it voted against military intervention in Syria was  historic.
He became the first British PM to get that “No” vote since 1782. Cameron had claimed that military intervention in Syria would be a “humanitarian intervention” where the Western coalition partners would “protect civilians from president Assad’s chemical attacks”, but British parliamentarians as representatives of the people rejected his argument.

Obama was thus left with one willing ally, Hollande of France. With their hands firmly on the trigger, they refused to listen to calls that they wait for the results of UN inspectors before taking military action against Syria, and that if action is taken, it should be done through the UN.

When they claimed that they had fool-proof evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack on civilians a fortnight ago, calls were made that they share that evidence with the international community. But they seem unwilling to do so. Maybe, the G-20 meeting in Russia this week will break that impasse.

But, it makes us question the motive behind the military intervention in Syria. If they want Russia, China and other UN member states to rally behind them, why hide that crucial evidence? If the rebels are not behind the chemical attack, why not share the evidence?
But it is the position taken by the British parliament that has given a new twist to the saga and also provides lessons for Obama, who seems to have forgotten that during the Vietnam War, Washington failed to convince London to send troops to fight in that dastardly war.
Obama, who was elected on the basis of his opposition to the Iraqi and Afghan wars, had also forgotten that the US Congress in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution, which calls on a sitting president to get authorisation before sending troops into “situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances to keep the operation going beyond 60 days”.

Thus, Obama was on Saturday forced to climb down, deferring the imminent strike to September 9. British historian Tim Stanley writing in The Telegraph said, “We basically taught Obama to respect his own constitution.”

Even then, the burden of proof that it was the Assad government that gassed innocent civilians still weighs very heavily on the Obama administration, but as the countdown to September 9 continues, we are bombarded with propaganda from Western media, propaganda meant to convince the international community to accept US claims instead of the results of tests being conducted by UN                              inspectors.

All this is being done to save Obama’s credibility, and more specifically that of the US as the world’s only super power, because a United States president cannot promise to take action and then not follow through his promise. This face-saving attack is meant to restore the dent on Obama’s legacy.

The credibility crisis shows a leadership saying that it wants to attack Syria in order to protect its people’s interests, but looking behind them, there are no people cheering it on.

With such a credibility deficit, should the US and its allies continue to impose their will on other nations? If they have no respect for the UN, why should members of the UN also accord them respect?

The Middle East conflicts have also exposed the double standards of Western nations. Since George W. Bush declared the war on terror with Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden being his chief target, illegal wars have been waged in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda.

Obama hunted down bin Laden and had him killed. It is, therefore, disturbing to learn that the US and its allies are providing assistance to rebel groups most of them linked to Al-Qaeda. Is it a question of the rebels in Syria being useful in advancing the West’s strategic interests?
Finally, we call on Obama to introspect on his warmongering attitude. He is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a prize he got a few months into his presidency, and we believe it was because of his stance on the Iraq war and his commitment to end it if elected. Five years into his presidency, is the world more peaceful, especially Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa?

In his Africa visit from June 27 to July 2 he paid homage to former South African President Nelson Mandela and his principled stand against apartheid. Unfortunately, Obama has shown that he is unable to follow Mandela’s footsteps and principles. As the first black president, he has become an object of the military industrial complex that runs US affairs.

The worst case scenario is how he also abused the Golden Jubilee of Dr Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” commemoration with his half-hearted address, while he was considering to attack Syria. It was an antithesis of what the civil rights leader stood for.

Thus the Syria attack will be a military undertaking meant to massage Western leaders’ huge egos. We are not condoning the violence and suffering in Syria, but only underlining that something has gone seriously wrong with democracy.