With the world watching anxiously, the United Kingdom made the quick decision to stay out of the chaos by not offering international response to Syria’s chemical weapon pandemonium. Prime Minister David Cameron had previously vowed to remain diplomatically involved, so Parliament’s near immediate decision may have come as a surprise to some, according to BBC.
Cameron was unsuccessful in gaining support from Parliament to stand behind Obama’s plan for military strikes against Bashar Hafez al-Assad. The White House response to this rejection was less than friendly. They were “bungled by Cameron” and this was “embarrassing for Cameron,” Parliament told The New York Times.
Without Britain’s support, Obama may end up unintentionally isolating himself, if the decision goes sour, according to BBC.
Even though Cameron voted in favor of using force, he made a statement saying the overall decision of Parliament was only one of regret, but not of rethinking.
“I won’t be bringing back plans for British participation in military action,” Cameron told BBC.
Group of Twenty, a group of 20 finance ministers and bank governors from the world’s 20 major economies, met Thursday, Sept. 6, for the summit of world leaders in St. Petersburg. The dominating topic was Obama and French President Francois Hollande’s united push for “limited military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.” But aside from France, no other country agreed to give military support, according to Fox News.
With America’s usual British partner-in-force out of the running, it is unclear how things will progress. Many fear that this strike will only lead to inevitable conflict that ends up dragging in Western countries anyway.
Whether the UK has made the right decision cannot yet be determined, and it is becoming hazy as to wonder whether America is going in the right direction either. Which side is better to support? On the one hand the rebels are killing Christians and prisoners and on the other, Assad is using chemical weapons. Technically, neither side is a friend nor is there significant national interest served in either case worth expending resources.
