Tulsi Gabbard is the member of Congress for my district here in Hawaii. She is a Democrat. But she has come out in the clearest terms against the policy of the president and her party for making Syrian president Bashir al-Assad leave office. She is clear that it is not only illegal because the Congress empowered to declare war has not done so, but she has cited the list of failed regime changes perpetrated by the US empire and how those acts have made things far worse in the Middle East region and not made the US safe at all.
This week, British prime minister, David Cameron, has secured the vote of Parliament to bomb Syria.
There's a lot of unfortunate symbolism here which hides the rot at the root of our failed democracies.
The US empire has fought many wars without Congress declaring them. A famous example would be the US war against Vietnam. A less famous one would be the US invasion of Grenada. There was no Congressional approval for regime change in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Argentina.
There was no Congressional approval for regime change and troops invasion of Haiti.
There was no Congressional approval for regime change and troops invasion of Haiti.
Some might argue that formal declarations of war are reserved for European powers against European powers, as when Congress declared war against NAZI Germany, the last time it made such a declaration. Any other so-called "police action" - their term, not mine, and it does reveal hegemonic posture - is just divvying up pies that naturally belong to the Western world
The UK is a different story altogether.
Cameron going to the floor of Parliament has only one precedent. Tony Blair did as much to invade Iraq - he lied about the evidence, but this is a different story. At that time, the members of Parliament approved the invasion. Blair has since said had he lost the vote he would have resigned. I still wonder why this man is not in a prison for the deaths he caused.
But I digress.
The British constitution, which is unwritten and based mostly on custom, does not give war powers to Parliament. Americans might wonder why it's not written, and I'll get back to that in a moment.
Two years ago, when Cameron's desire to invade Syria was defeated, the first question the Labour Party asked was: would the prime minister use the Royal Prerogative to invade anyway. Cameron said he would not.
If the British constitution does not give war powers to Parliament, who declares war? The answer is the monarch does.
The monarch declares war, concludes peace terms, signs treaties, recognizes other governments [or does not]. Ambassadors are not accredited to Great Britain, as they are to the United States. While there is a French ambassador to the US, there is, in legal terms, no French ambassador to Great Britain.
The French ambassador is accredited to the Court of St James, a royal palace, for receiving and dispatching ambassadors. Like the members of Parliament of the UK, the queen's ambassadors swear their oaths to the monarch and her family.
When Great Britain declared war on Germany, twice, sent troops to Egypt to attempt to reclaim the Suez Canal, invaded and fought with Argentine troops over the Falkland Islands, it was done in the monarch's hand with the advice of the prime minister.
In the British constitution, Parliament has nothing whatsoever to do with it, so their opinion is irrelevant. In the US, the Congressional opinion does matter, but this seems to make little difference.
In 1999, a member of Parliament introduced a bill which would have given authority to declare war on Iraq to Parliament. The Queen, reportedly on the advice of PM Tony Blair, barred debate of the bill in Parliament, and it was effectively killed.
The corrosion that has always been at the heart of our failed states, has only grown more so.
In 1999, a member of Parliament introduced a bill which would have given authority to declare war on Iraq to Parliament. The Queen, reportedly on the advice of PM Tony Blair, barred debate of the bill in Parliament, and it was effectively killed.
The corrosion that has always been at the heart of our failed states, has only grown more so.
Right in front of our faces, our so-called civilizations have come to depend on constant warfare more than the sustained endorsement of the masses. War is like life-blood itself. The the masses is like acne, to be controlled or eradicated.
While it is fashionable to turn on each other in our communities or at the workplace, our
political leadership has gotten out of hand. It makes me recall George
Bernard Shaw's scandalous directive during WWI that the troops on both
sides needed to turn their guns on their own generals, shoot them, and
come home for Christmas.
Britain's establishment is committed to an unwritten constitution, based on convention and habit, because - I suspect - it wants to default to authoritarian rule, whether by a prime minister or a monarch. It does not ever want to codify powers to Parliament and the people. Incidentally, this is why House of Lords reform has become so contentious and at a dead-end: the last thing a British prime minister wants to do is create a second, democratically elected chamber to compete with its powers.
Just as egregious, the US establishment is committed to its written constitution just so long as it is never enforced.
From our workplaces to state and local governments, the United States and its partner the United Kingdom are committed to keeping the people in line - be it with coercion or circuses. And countries, like ours, which hate democracy this much cannot reasonably be believed to import it abroad.
