Causes and wrongs of Western pacifism

USA and France are the main proponents of armed intervention in Syria and are also united by their opposition to public opinion and the uncertainty of a parliamentary vote , which will happen for sure in the United States and looming in Paris. The English experience teaches caution , nothing can be taken for granted, however this particular prudence in its internal institutional moves of the two countries and puts a priority strengthens the alliance between the White House and Elisha. For Obama 's refusal received by the parliament in London, has meant a political defeat , because it comes from the ally traditionally more loyal . Washington respects , but does not include all of the reasons for voting against the British and does not affect a bond always solid, but at the moment it is clear that contingent Paris becomes the main ally in the Syrian issue . If it is unthinkable that France barefoot England from the main ally of the Americans , it becomes equally clear that the new relations between Paris and Washington take on a particular importance also in terms of the future , both in military cooperation , which in the economic. Hollande , despite numerous setbacks has proved , so far, have done a high-risk investment , but that will not bring benefits based on American gratitude . This case also highlights how international alliances have entered into a more fluid and less rigid, because more and more influenced by factors. The logic of the reasons America is now perceived by Washington's closest allies , such as less binding and subject to the judgment of the most essential factors , creating an extension of democracy even on issues that were the subject of absolute relevance of the executive . The increased importance of dissemination of information and the judgment of public opinion, which was present before, but was not evaluated properly, thus becomes a hallmark of Western democracies , which contributes , it must be said clearly , even the difficult overall economic situation, which does not allow more spending budgets as before. The themes of war are then evaluated with severity , if this is a new form of growth of the Western democracies , contains , in itself , however, a downside pretty obvious. The length of time of the decision, the lack of understanding of the reasons of states and governments , so end to facilitate those nations that are governed by state forms only nominally democratic and where there is a direction of the vertex functional at the powers that be . Thus one can understand how the political battle between Obama and Putin is uneven, with the first , which also passes through warmonger , is subject to constraints that the second can not even imagine could exist in his country (where it is common practice to censorship ) . There is thus a singular cases where rulers certainly not liberal stand as champions of peace, only to respond to a design convenient to them . Than in Western countries there is this development can only be considered positive : the affirmation of the sovereignty of the British Parliament against a decision of the government is not shared is a lesson in democracy , that you would like to see applied not only in other countries who say they are democratic , but also in the United Nations regulations , which are blocked by vetoes absurd . So if you vote against the English parliamentary represents a clear expression against the war , but also contains reason to doubt that they can not all be covered , because it could be applied to any other nation , and for other similar cases and no international politics. The ruling , in fact constitutes a negative opinion to armed intervention , without providing alternatives , especially if they relate to humanitarian needs or budget, that is linked to an action against the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction. It is not enough , as indicated by several other governments , to appeal the decisions of the United Nations , when it is clear that these are hostage to vetoes arising only from individual interests . What is missing is the sense of responsibility of the richest nations to the protection of civilians killed indiscriminately, they should also ancient wrongs arising post-colonial age . It may be objected that this period is too far away in time, however, remains unchanged is responsible for applying the principles relating to the protection of the population and are inalienable . This is even more true when you consider the negligence in the diplomatic action , and certainly not military , that has united the Western states , which have overlooked from the beginning the story Syria and its developments . If you want to reject war as a means of stabilization, is not enough to postpone the problem only the UN, but we need a diplomatic engagement in first person, which would justify the refusal military action compensated by an intense negotiation between the Parties . This does not happen and ranking, therefore, the Western pacifism only as a mere exercise in denial of responsibility.