UK parliament wins veto over any decision to arm Syrian rebels

LONDON Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:56pm EDT

A Free Syrian Army fighter aims his weapon as he takes position inside a house in the city of Aleppo July 11, 2013. REUTERS/Muzaffar Salman

A Free Syrian Army fighter aims his weapon as he takes position inside a house in the city of Aleppo July 11, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Muzaffar Salman

Related Video


Ramadan in Syria

Thu, Jul 11 2013

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's parliament backed a motion on Thursday requiring Prime Minister David Cameron to give it a veto over any future move to arm Syrian rebels, in a symbolic vote the government said it would heed.

Britain says it has not yet taken any decision to arm rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, but its role in helping to lift a European Union arms embargo on Syria in May fuelled speculation it was planning to do just that.

The lower house of parliament voted by 114-1 to back a motion requiring the government to seek its "explicit prior consent" for any future decision to provide lethal assistance.

Though symbolic, the move is significant as it means Cameron will find it almost impossible not to give parliament a vote on the issue, something government sources say would amount to an effective veto over any decision to supply arms.

Ministers expect the 650-member lower house to vote against sending arms if the issue arises, said one government source.

Many lawmakers in Cameron's Conservative Party say they are worried a decision to arm the moderate opposition in Syria would escalate and widen the conflict and risk weapons falling into the hands of Islamist extremists.

"The government has discussed the option of arming the rebels. This would be a major policy change. This debate allows us to mark the government's card," said John Baron, a Conservative lawmaker who secured Thursday's vote.

The uprising led by Syria's Sunni Muslim majority is increasingly rallying around Islamist appeals as Assad's forces notch up battlefield gains against the rebels in a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people since 2011.

(Reporting By Andrew Osborn; Editing by Gareth Jones)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
boreal wrote:
The spirit of Magna Carta is revisiting England, cutting privileges of the backroom boys, the influential unelected power lobbyists.

Jul 11, 2013 2:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:
I personally think that all nations should go this route. Otherwise you might get some leader who is just a puppet of their military making extremely detrimental decisions that are not supported by a fully elected body of the people. This is not our war, this is not Britain’s war. If other Arab nations want to arm the rebels, more power to them. It would certainly make more sense that way.

Jul 11, 2013 2:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dennis6900 wrote:
I wish the US would head in that direction. If the “rebels” had no arms they then would have to return to the negotiating table, and stop killing each other out of ego, like a bunch of backwood fools.

Jul 11, 2013 7:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.