Cameron urges UK Parliament to back intervention against Islamic State

Unlike last year, when British lawmakers voted against action in Syria, he is likely to get the nod to go ahead. Both votes have underscored Parliament's growing role in making such decisions.

Reuters/Pool
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron addressed the House of Commons Friday, where he urged lawmakers to vote in favor of Britain joining US-led airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq. His speech came hours ahead of a crunch parliamentary vote he is expected to win.

Just over a year ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered his most humiliating political defeat when Parliament voted against plans to bomb Syria.

The vote halted any British attacks on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime – and ultimately influenced the same outcome for the US and other allies. It also set a precedent of requiring parliamentary approval for any large-scale UK military intervention abroad.

Thirteen months on, Mr. Cameron returned to the House of Commons today to seek approval to bomb Syria’s neighbor Iraq, albeit under different circumstances and facing a very different enemy: Islamic State. And this time, he is expected to get a commanding majority – something that could result in putting the Royal Air Force into action over Iraq as early as tonight British time.

So what has happened over the past 13 months to allow resounding support for bombing IS in Iraq as opposed to bombing a dictatorial regime in Syria accused of gassing its own citizens?

Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science and public policy at the London School of Economics, says that the British public is generally more aligned with German opinion, which is hesitant about intervention, than it is with the US and France under French President François Hollande. But, he says, public revulsion at IS’s brutality has played a major role in supporting British action.  

“If the gruesome video of beheading a British hostage and ISIL’s [as IS is also known] general uncivilized behavior was meant to be a provocation, it has worked and now it looks like we will be in direct confrontation with ISIL,” Prof. Dunleavy says.

Indeed, Cameron underscored not only IS's brutality but the threat it poses to the UK as he addressed lawmakers.

“Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, bordering a NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our country and our people,” Cameron told MPs today. “This is not the stuff of fantasy — it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.”

Behind-the-scenes politicking was also key to pushing the UK in the direction of supporting intervention.

“What’s different from last year is that the Iraqi government has asked for our assistance, but not in Syria," Dunleavy says. "Even if Assad’s government asked for help, I don’t think the British government would regard it as a legitimate government anyway."

The vote underscores a significant change in convention on military intervention in the UK. Since last year’s landmark Syria vote, which Cameron lost 285-272, British prime ministers still maintain a type of "royal prerogative" to authorize military action, but it's unlikely a leader could take action without a House of Commons vote, says Paul Cornish, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

“The prime minister can authorize it, but it’s unlikely a British prime minister will ever again authorize a major use of force without a vote of MPs," he says. "At some stage a decision like that might be enshrined in law, but an important precedent was set last year which prime ministers are unlikely to break."

He notes that the US and UK alliance is still strong and that many Britons are happy with the decision last year. "This time round, though, the situation is different with a broader based coalition with Qatar, Saudis, Emirates all joining the US,” he says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.