Earlier this month, several US legislators were quick to respond to Trump’s announcement that the US military had just launched a series of precision strikes on Syrian targets. They criticized the president for bypassing congressional approval on the latest military action. At least one GOP lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) immediately joined a chorus of other Democrats—including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Se. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—in blasting the commander-in-chief for not consulting the constitution.
“While Bashar al-Assad must be held accountable for his unlawful use of chemical weapons against civilians, the strikes that are being carried out are done without an authorization from Congress, which is acceptable,” Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) tweeted in one of the first reactions to Trump’s announcement. Rep. Massie said, “I haven’t read France’s or Britain’s ‘Constitution,’ but I’ve read ours and nowhere in it is [the] Presidential authority to strike Syria.”
These reactions began only minutes after President Trump made public in a nationally-televised address to the nation that he had approved of the US Department of Defense in concert with the UK and French forces, to launch airstrikes on targets linked directly to the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria. The airstrikes came in response to alleged chemical weapons strike in the suburb of Duma over a weekend which left dozens, most of them children and women, dead and many more injured. American officials have since then blamed the Syrian regime and its premier Assad for carrying out these attacks.
Pelosi spoke after the US strikes that “one night of airstrikes” would not address longer-term issues in Syria and demanded that Trump propose a comprehensive strategy for US involvement in the war-torn country. The Democrats have argued that the President must come to Congress and secure an Authorization for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep American armed forces safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians.
Last year, Trump also authorized airstrikes against Syrian targets after the Assad regime had allegedly used biochemical weapons, in a move that earned similar criticism from those who pointed to the constitutional requirement of congressional authorization for the country to go to war. Trump announced last Monday that he was weighing a response to the alleged chemical attack, which in turn prompted calls from several lawmakers for the president to first seek congressional authorization for any military action taken against Syria.
Then what about France and the UK? The UK parliament apparently has one of the weakest democratic checks on their head of state when it comes to military action.
In fact, no vote or even notification is required of the PM. On the matter of war, few western parliaments are weaker than the UK’s. There is no legal requirement for the prime minister to consult MPs before taking military action—or even to inform them. In recent days, conservative MPs and Tony Blair have emphasized that Theresa May would not require parliamentary approval to launch air strikes against Syria following last month’s chemical weapons attack in Damascus. How has this antiquated power endured? In 2007, shortly after ending “Number 10,” Gordon Brown voted to limit the Royal Prerogative under which the prime minister can unilaterally declare war. Parliament, Brown proposed, would be guaranteed the right to approve “significant [and] non-routine” deployments of the armed forces to the “greatest extent possible.” But nullified by the 2007-2008 global financial crisis and a couple years of recession that followed, the government abandoned reform.
Some argued that the 2003 Iraq war vote—which prompted the largest backbench rebellion since the 1846 repeal of Corn Laws—had established an informal convention by which MPs would be consulted in advance of military action. But an exception was made in the case of the Libya intervention in 2011, which parliament only approved retrospectively with only a baker’s dozen MPs rebelling, let alone in Mali back in 2013 which was conducted with no debate or vote altogether. And the difficulty, as so often with Britain’s unwritten constitution, is a definitional one. What qualifies as “significant military action” or an “emergency”? MPs reasonably fear that an unscrupulous prime minister could use the ancient Royal Prerogative to bypass them. And the fear is not completely unfounded.
A 2010 survey of 25 European parliamentary democracies found that 11 had “very” strong parliamentary war-making powers—meaning prior parliamentary approval required for each government decision relating to the use of military force whereby parliament can investigate and debate the use of military force. Four countries had “strong” powers—meaning prior approval of military action in all but exceptional circumstances were necessary. Two had “medium” powers—which meant the ability for the parliament to demand troops withdrawal and to investigate and debate military force) and four had “weak” powers—meaning parliamentary notification required.
2012 Audit of UK Democracy: How Democratic is the UK? (Photo: Democratic Audit)
Back to the US who is pretty much leading the Western coalition’s military action on Syria with respect to their use of chemical weapons, Congress seems to be searching for ways to rein in the war-making powers of their executive branch. Many lawmakers of across partisan lines agree the commander-in-chief has broad authority to engage in short-term actions. But they are under growing pressure to apply stronger oversight. Last month, the Senate voted 55-44 to kill a legislation ending US support for the war against the Iranian-backed Houthis.
Another new bill under discussion would supplant a counter-terrorism law from 2001 that has been used to justify an ever-expanding number of interventions in the Middle East and beyond, while another could complicate US foothold in the region altogether including the perennial American support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen.
But other say letting the parliament or Congress decide which groups they’ll be fighting and using what means can be equally worrisome. If the US Congress wants to force the issue that could, say, take a month to decide, that, in the cosmos of modern warfare, is a lifetime. Surely, some adequate balance between the administration and the legislature is possible, if not necessary.
Bureaucrat by day and writer by night, Schoni Song is a program officer at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. When not doing anything related to politics, he's likely contemplating about food, film and culture. Schoni can be reached atschoni0124@naver.com or mseap@assembly.go.kr. - Ed |
