History repeats itself

Almost all television channels and newspapers are abuzz with stories and analysis about British Prime Minister David Cameron, who dealt a major blow as he faced Commons defeat over plans for attacks on Syria.
Few people know that this is not the first time a British premier has faced just a situation. Last time a prime minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was way back in 1782. Interestingly at that time as well, the United States was involved. The British Parliament had turned down a request from the then government willing to use forced against the American rebels who had declared independence. The Parliament, instead of approving use of force, had decided to recognize America’s independence.
That may not be at the back of the minds of the 285 parliamentarians led by the opposition Labor Party joined by 30 Tory rebels. It is the experience of Iraq war that has deterred the Britons to act against Syria. A decade ago, then Prime Minister Tony Blair led almost unilaterally his government, his party and his country to join the war against Iraq.
It is mainly the bitter outcome of that intervention — lacking any international or legal cover — that has prevented the Britons to act in tandem with their trusted ally, the United States. And perhaps, this is also the reason behind the American hesitation. It is realpolitiks in play and questions of who is going to pay the cost and why London should foot the bill of such an intervention are at the forefront of the discussion.
In the UK for instance, polls have shown that 75 percent were against intervention, while only nine percent were in favor.
Interestingly, London’s move provided a lesson to President Barak Obama. He surprised even his aides with his decision to win a congressional approval for a military action against Bashar Assad’s regime. How long that will take and the type of the military strike and its actual impact on the Syrian regime remains to be seen.
Though initially London’s rejection was seen as affecting the special relationship with Washington, but Obama’s decision has somehow balanced the equation. Cameron has his hands tied by the Parliament’s decision, while in the US it was the president’s choice. In both cases, there is a move to rethink their relations with this part of the world, the Middle East. This is what George Osborne, a rising British politician asked, which amounts to “soul searching” as he puts it, which is long overdue given unprecedented changes taking place in Britain itself or its relationship with the rest of the world.
It is interesting to note that the vote led by the Labor leader, Edward Miliband, represents in a way new sentiments of a new generation.
Part of the problem is related to the diminishing importance of the region in the eyes of the western capitals and part of it relates to changes occurred due to globalization and the communication revolution.
Blair spoke once about the media and politics in this changing environment. He pointed out that in good old days; governments had the luxury of debating an issue for days before making a decision. When he took office, things had worsened to the point of tackling one issue in the morning and another one in the afternoon. Later he said, politicians have to make decisions as crises unfold, in real time.
That is not a problem for Britain alone. The whole world is moving into unchartered waters of the new communication revolution, where old institutions are dying, while new ones are struggling to emerge.

• This article is exclusive to Arab News.

Email: [email protected]