Jeremy Corbyn
Thirst for war
JEREMY CORBYN argues that the last thing the world needs is a new imperialist era courtesy of Tony Blair.
LAST Wednesday, I invited the Prime Minister to condemn the US unilateral bombing of Somalia.
The text of our exchange is as follows. "Does the Prime Minister share the widespread concern around the world at the unilateral action of the United States in bombing Somalia a couple of days ago and again yesterday? Does he not think that that bombardment will merely intensify the already desperate situation for the people of Somalia, when what is required is not foreign intervention but a peace process in Somalia?"
The Prime Minister replied: "I agree with my honourable friend to this extent - of course, what is in the interests of everyone in Somalia is to have a peace process that works properly. He will be aware, however, that some of the extremists who have been using methods of violence to get their way in Somalia pose a threat not just to the outside world but to people in Somalia as well.
"When we look around different parts of the world today, we can see this global terrorism. It is a clear ideology and a clear strategy and it is right that, wherever it is attempting to warp local decision-making and to prevent people from getting the type of life they want, we should be there standing up and supporting those who are combating that terrorism and giving people the chance to live in better circumstances."
What surprised me was that he seemed simply not to comprehend that a 2001 statement by George Bush that the US was waging a "war on terror" did not give Washington carte blanche to bomb at will, with impunity.
The Somali provisional government seemed unaware that the bombing was going to take place and, in all probability, the African Union, whose forces were supposed to be peacekeeping in Somalia, didn't know about it either.
Washington's actions, far from bringing peace to the war-torn people of southern Somalia, have made a bad situation worse.
In a grim reminder of the air strikes against wedding parties in Afghanistan in 2001, it has since emerged that most of the people killed by the US were not even "suspects."
As the war on terror moves to yet another theatre, one would have thought that the British government, at least, would want to review the situation.
Instead, we witnessed Tony Blair making another major policy speech in friendly surroundings.
His choice of venue for these pronouncements is always interesting. Blair chose to deliver one of his early forays into world philosophy to a hand-picked audience of business people in Durham. A long speech in November was made amid the tiaras and jewels of the Lord Mayor's banquet. This time, the venue was the warship HMS Albion.
Not for him a speech in Parliament, where he could be questioned, or in front of an interactive audience that could challenge his notions.
And well they might. As controversy about public spending levels on vital policy areas such as health, education and housing began to surface, Blair decided to announce plans for even more spending on the military.
There used to be a time when the Labour Party would talk with pride about getting "defence" spending below 1 per cent of gross domestic product and argued that education should cost more than arms.
Ten years into the new Labour government, military spending is rising and defence ministers are proud of it, attacking the "Tory cuts" of the early 1990s as proof of their patriotism.
Britain's spending is now £32.5 billion per year, 2.5 per cent of GDP. France spends less (£21 billion) and Germany much less again (£14.2 billion).
The US tops the league among industrial countries, spending £239 billion a year, 4 per cent of GDP.
Blair's choice of venue for this speech was not an accident. He wanted to portray himself and new Labour as being pro-military and to persuade the public that it was time to increase spending still further.
Within a couple of months, the decision on the future of Trident and its possible replacement will be made. It will cost at least £26 billion and running costs throughout its life will total a further £50 billion.
'There was a time when the Labour Party would talk with pride about getting defence spending below 1 per cent of GDP.'
It might do the Prime Minister good one day to look at a world map, better a Peters projection, which attempts to show the relative size of countries more fairly, and to note the relative size of the UK in relation to the globe. He would do well to think of the enormous problems faced by the planet in poverty, life expectancy and environment.
The whole thrust of British foreign policy since the post-war period has been to stay attached to the US. The formation of NATO was as much a British as a US idea and has created a global force which is largely unchallenged in the conventional sense. We are all paying for it.
The period following the end of the cold war provided an opportunity to reduce spending and to create a more stable global climate. Instead, a wasted decade ended with the World Trade Centre attacks and then the swinging into action of the Project for a New American Century's military arm.
The war in Afghanistan was portrayed as a great success that defeated the Taliban.
Five years later, British commanders are complaining about the lack of military support from NATO "allies" as the fightback by the Taliban in the south of the country intensifies.
The total loss of life in Afghanistan now runs into many thousands.
In Iraq, the death toll already stands at well over half a million and the figure is rising rapidly.
Bush and his neoconservative fanatics seem to be oblivious even to US public opinion as they send in even more troops in an attempt to regain control.
Last week, it was revealed just what is being planned for the Iraqi oil industry if they are successful.
The plan represents a repeat of the shady deals done in Iran in 1953 after the coup which overthrew the democratic, nationalist and independent government and replaced it with the Shah's regime, which gave BP and other companies 25 years of cheap oil.
Blair presents his vision of endless global interventions as a moral crusade where conventional international law does not apply. The essence of his presentation is that Britain needs to be able to defend itself when it is not under any attack or direct threat and join US-led military actions against the world.
Next week, the World Social Form reconvenes in Kenya. In Africa for the first time, it will attract tens of thousands of the poorest and most dispossessed people from a continent beset by war. It is a region high on the agenda for "humanitarian" intervention by the West.
But those attending the WSF in Nairobi next week will not see the military hardware of super-rich nations as being much help in the battle against Aids, water-borne illnesses or simply the struggle to allow farmers to produce food.
• Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North. He can be contacted at corbynj@parliament.uk
