Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Western newspapers focused on a resounding defeat for Cameron in the House of Commons and refers to the division of the European Union about possible Western military intervention against Syria

Western newspapers focused on a resounding defeat for Cameron in the House of Commons and refers to the division of the European Union about possible Western military intervention against Syria

Jalal Hijaz

London 'S' highlighted the British newspapers on Friday in dealing with the Syrian issue a strong blow suffered by the Prime Minister David Cameron to reject his proposal to participate in military action against the Syrian regime.
The importance of the defeat suffered by Cameron and their impact on British-American relations in the future.
And start from the newspaper 'The Guardian', which devoted its front page to talk about the results of the parliamentary vote, where headline 'Parliament forcing Cameron to withdraw from the attack on Syria '.
The newspaper said that the vote was in favor of the decision of non-intervention and the outcome of 285 votes 272 votes voted with the intervention, the newspaper said that the result of the vote came also because of the dozens of MPs vote with the conservatives Labour MPs not to interfere.
The newspaper reported that Cameron and just minutes from the result of the vote, said he would respect the Parliament's decision not to intervene in any military attack against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The newspaper pointed out that the Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for Prime Minister Cameron's decision not to skip parliament and going to use the royal privilege to participate in the attack will be led by the United States. Lord Cameron on the demand, saying: 'I can give this assurance, the House of Representatives did not vote tonight to do any move, however I believe really need to respond to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe need to respect the desire of the House of Commons' and added' It is very clear to me that failure to pass a resolution of the House of Commons intervention reflects the desire of the British not to interfere in any military attack, I have received the idea and the government will act accordingly. '
The newspaper pointed to accuse Philip Hammond, British Defense Secretary of the Workers' Party leader Ed Miliband that the latter offers' help 'to the regime of Bashar al-Assad not to support the government's decision. In an interview for the evening news on channel 'BBC' said: There is no doubt that this decision will lead to some tension in the special relations with the Americans, they know the parliamentary procedures that we fought, but I think they were surprised by the size of the opposition '.
In the same newspaper in another article we read the title of an article 'Obama will probably attack, without the support of the British ally'.
The article conveys hints the White House yesterday that he was civilized to carry out the attack on the Syrian regime without the participation of the British, and that Barack Obama will move depending on the interest of the United States.
The article said that the House of Commons vote has led to embarrass the British diplomats who have spent the last few months in an attempt to persuade President Obama to the need for military intervention against the Assad regime.
In the newspaper 'The Independent' wrote the editor of Political Affairs Andrew Grace says that the prospects for Britain's participation in a military strike against the government in Damascus faded dramatically last night after suffering a humiliating defeat David Cameron in the House of Commons.
Grace says that voting against the decision of the military intervention in Syria, surprised everyone by leaving Cameron disoriented is unable to provide support to the United States, as he wants, in the military hit potential.
The paper dealt with in another topic the most important and most of the comments came on the San politicians participants in the British House of Commons session that lasted for hours until late Thursday night.
And varied views of MPs, but most of them refused to military intervention, notably Jim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for the Ministry of Transport in the shadow cabinet who resigned in protest against the proposed military action, saying that 'the only truth that we know we do not know to what extent we will go if we move forward in the way of military action' .
Then put a paper on another issue which intelligence reports about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The Independent published under the title theme 'regardless of doubts. Evidence of the horrors of chemical weapons is still not convincing '.
The article addresses you typed Kim Sengupta criticism of the British intelligence services report that it failed to provide a strong and convincing motive to Britain's military intervention in Syria.
The Financial Times addressed the issue of the British Parliament vote from another angle and the subject was published under the title 'the memory of Iraq hanging over the deliberations of the House of Commons'.
The paper says that Iraq's share of a speech Prime Minister David Cameron in the parliamentary session was similar to the share of Syria and after the voting ends Cameron pointed out the fact that findings is that 'the desire of the British public affected by the Iraq war.'
The Times newspaper فنشرت the subject under the title 'Miliband accused of treason and Britain's special relationship with America crumble'.
His article writer Sam Coutts focused on Cameron's remarks on affected relations between Britain and the United States after refusing to participate in military action.
The newspaper quoted statements from officials in the British government reflect the anger Cameron of Labour leader Ed Miliband, most notably 'I do not believe that Miliband preferred to waive the interests of the country in order to avoid slipping into the hole.'
And we read in The Times last topic under the title of 'experts warn Obama that resorting to the individual decision of madness'
The paper dealt with the opinions of some American experts, including retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former member of the U.S. National Security Council and the commander of the mechanical Infantry Brigade in the first Gulf War.
McCaffrey says: 'The United States asylum to act on their own without the support of Britain absolute madness'.
The general said 'I can not imagine that we would take a single step. At least we need to support Britain and France. We can not move without the support of Britain, I'm sure of it. '
As Ken Pollack, national security adviser to former President Bill Clinton stressed that 'full British support is essential and vital for the Obama administration.'
In the newspaper 'The Daily Telegraph' dealt with accusations of Governors of the leader of the Labour Party that the opposition to the military intervention is the lifeline of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the newspaper headline on the front page as follows 'sharply divided on Syria and conservatives are attacking fiercely Miliband'.
The Daily Telegraph also published under the coverage of the Syrian crisis last topic on the 'jihadi movements under the cover of American strike'.
The newspaper said that militant groups fighting in the ranks of the opposition announced that it will implement a series of attacks against the Syrian government forces taking advantage of the cover, which will be provided by possible U.S. strikes.
The newspaper quoted the Ahrar al-Sham militant group warned that it will not extradite American missiles.
The fighter said of the group, 'We are free-Sham group and other Islamic groups in Syria hold endless meetings in order to secure the necessary precautionary measures to counter U.S. aggression'.
And brought to the French newspaper Le Monde light on the division of the European Union about possible Western military intervention against Syria.
Le Monde reported that the European Union foreign ministers will discuss developments in Syria before the formal meeting is scheduled on the sixth of next month in Lithuania.
Refuted the daily French European attitudes contradictory on intervention in Syria, noting that Denmark clearly supports the idea of military intervention raised by the United States, France and Britain, while calling Belgium partners to provide their evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons while Italy, Poland and the Netherlands argue the need to obtain authorization UN before launching any operation in Syria.
According to Le Monde that all members of the European Union depend on the principle of a mandate from the United Nations and has long been in the framework of the principle of respect for international law, noting that all the ministerial meeting of European on the Syrian issue ends with the call to the need for access to the 'political solution'.
On the other hand NATO North Atlantic 'NATO', noted Le Monde to the meeting of ambassadors of the organization, which was held yesterday, where discussions were general enough to avoid differences in attitudes, adding that at this stage, the participation of NATO military action is likely against Syria seems unlikely.
In conclusion, the French newspaper, saying that after the events of the Iraq war in March 2003, and the French intervention - the British in Libya in 2011, and also military intervention French in Mali in January of this year, it seems that Europe stands again unable to take a unified stand when they should consider military option.

No comments:

Post a Comment