Corbyn: Opposing the War Routine
By Lindsey German
Jeremy Corbyn’s speech today on defence and foreign policy
was one that you could never have heard from either a Tory or a Blairite
politician. He spelt out in the clearest terms what his philosophy was, why he
had spent a lifetime opposing military interventions and nuclear weapons, why
this was not a denial of human rights but actually support for the human right
to live in peace and not be threatened by bombing. The speech and his answers
to questions showed a person who has spent a lifetime supporting campaigns for
national liberation, against war, in defence of refugees and against injustice.
His knowledge and experience in this area already puts him
head and shoulders above most MPs of any party – something that in any half
rational society would be seen as an asset, but here is regarded as a sideshow
beside what are deemed by the press to be the key questions: would he order a
first strike, would he support drone assassination of ISIS leaders, are there
really no wars that he would support?
'What passes for debate on foreign policy
in this country is for the most part a disgrace'
|
Instead, Corbyn made clear in his speech the seriousness of
these questions and why they should not be used as soundbites or cheap
political points.
‘I am often asked if
as prime minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons. It’s an
extraordinary question when you think about it: would you order the
indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such extensive
contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the
world? It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of
catastrophe for humankind.’
It is refreshing to hear a potential Prime Minister say
this, and to know that he is doing so against a wave of right wing jingoism
about his supposed ‘pacifism’. What passes for debate on foreign policy in this
country is for the most part a disgrace. It consists of demands to go to war
with an almost routine regularity, as Corbyn said this morning, a brief period
of supposedly glorious flag waving, followed by near silence about their
effects on the people who suffer death, displacement and injury. Worse, those
victims of war who become refugees are treated to scapegoating and
discrimination, fanned by the same press which has been so keen on the wars in
the first place.
These successive wars have been going on during the past
four elections, but have never been seriously dealt with. Now we have a chance
to debate and discuss what exactly they have achieved, and why the Tories and
their friend Trump are so keen on future wars.
Is this likely? I read the article by the BBC defence
correspondent on its website after the speech, and these words jumped out at
me: ‘He was more critical of the Trump administration than he was of Russia or
China…by stressing the role of the UN Security Council he appeared to give
Russia and China a veto over any UK decision to use force.’
I know that the BBC has become an annexe of the Tory press
office over the elections, but really. This line is a direct echo of the right
wing, who seem to regard the UN and international law as inconvenient bastions
of liberalism which must be ignored in favour of unilateral intervention.
So expect the press to ignore or distort the many issues
that Jeremy Corbyn raised today. But also expect a more serious attempt to deal
with these issues than from any other Labour leader previously. We have a
straight choice: if you want more war, then Theresa May is your woman. Today,
Jeremy Corbyn put a very different alternative forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.