Jeremy Corbyn

|

Beware the general

JEREMY CORBYN warns of the ever-increasing warlike noises coming from Washington toward Iran.
GENERAL Petraeus and his Pentagon press officers are heading into hyperdrive.
They are bizarrely claiming that a slight reduction in casualties in Iraq among troops and the civilian population amounts to a victory for Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra combat troops.
They then go on to assert that this shows that the whole strategy from 2003 onwards has been successful.
Not only is this claim false but it also shows a cold-hearted disdain for the totality of the destruction in Iraq.
Well over half a million people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict since 2003. Somewhere near four million Iraqis are exiled from their own homes and are now either in neighbouring countries or being billeted in towns and villages throughout the country. The lack of access to basic services means that, for most Iraqis, life has never been so bad in a physical sense.
In the US, Democrat presidential contender Barack Obama has been making much of his opposition to the war in Iraq and yet neither he nor Hillary Clinton is capable of answering a specific question about their future attitude towards Iran.
There are many very legitimate causes for concern in Iran, such as the treatment of trade unionists, execution policies and political freedoms.
However, Iran remains a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has been subject to numerous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In its last report, the IAEA acknowledged that it was receiving greater levels of co-operation and that the need for a new and more intensive round of sanctions against Iran was proving to be unlikely or necessary.
Since neither China nor Russia would support the new round of sanctions, it's very unlikely that they would get through the new UN security council either.
On a wider scale, it is very clear that the US strategy in the whole region has been running into increasing problems. The lack of success in Iraq despite the deployment of over 150,000 troops continuously for the past four-and-a-half years and the apparent need to deploy large numbers of troops in Afghanistan six years on from the invasion suggest a lack of local public support for the Western position.
This situation increases the danger of war spreading to Iran, either by bombing or, less likely, by invasion. Those who call for dialogue and negotiation with the Iranian government are treated as though they are being in some way unpatriotic in their approach.
Even when the federal intelligence agencies in the US admitted that there was only a very limited threat from Iran to the US, George Bush and the hawks decided to rubbish their own intelligence report.
Thus, the serious danger of a wider conflict in the region persists. It is important for the anti-war movement to be vigilant.
Anyone who follows the statements made by both the military and the government in Israel would recognise that they have an obsession bordering on the hysterical over Iran. They constantly make ever more absurd claims about Iran. This coming from a country that possesses more nuclear warheads than Britain and maintains a highly sophisticated delivery system in order to deploy them against any target, particularly Iraq.
Indeed, the work by Walt and Meersheimer in the US explained that, strategically, the US attack and presence in Iraq was actually one step in a longer-term preparation for an attack on Iran. Events are unfolding in such a way that this may well be the case.
Within Iran, support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and some of his domestic policies varies considerably.
Within popular society, there are many issues that are constantly raised on economic, human rights and working conditions. However, it would be wrong to assume that discontent in Iran means that there is support from any significant sections of society for the US policy within the region or that, in the event of an attack or invasion, there would not be the greatest possible unity against it.
Increasingly, the US neoconservative strategy looks like a busted flush.
It is important that the European countries which oppose the war in the first place regain the initiative. They need to engage in serious dialogue with Iran that will encourage the country to remain a participant in the non-proliferation process, as well as addressing the very real human rights issues, but that will also oppose the idea that extending the disaster of Iraq into Iran will do nothing but plunge the whole region into an even bigger conflict than it is currently in.
Will developers get power over Parliament?
ON Monday night, the House of Commons debated a new planning law for the UK.
Planning is at the heart of an awful lot of things to do with our society. While there are some aspects of this Bill that are very welcome, the big problem is the way that it overrides local concerns about major developments.
For the first time, the Bill allows Parliament to decide on "national planning objectives." Behind this euphemism, read airports, motorways, nuclear power stations, high-speed railways and new ports.
Remember the huge and lengthy planning inquiries that took place over the construction of nuclear power stations and terminal five at Heathrow.
The idea of national planning objectives where Parliament, on a whipped vote, forces six new nuclear power stations onto the national agenda knowing that they would then be subject to only minimal local planning inquiries displays just how dangerous this proposal is.
Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell made a very strong point concerning the third runway that is proposed at Heathrow, which, combined with a sixth terminal, would lead to 10,000 of his constituents losing their homes.
John warned the House that any MP who had the possibility of an airport, a nuclear power station or other major development in their constituency would find that developers and those who want to make profit out of the degradation of local environments would be able to ride roughshod over local views.
The Bill is now to be debated in committee. Hopefully, there will be strong enough objections to Parliament overriding any local process and a return to the very local process which Parliament voted on earlier this year via the Sustainable Communities Bill. The bottom line is that developers should not have power over Parliament.
No end in sight in Afghanistan
LAST weekend, the world's media was summoned to observe a military success in Afghanistan with the retaking of Musa Qala from the Taliban.
Military planners said that this was about preparing for a winter offensive operation and that, in reality, it was quite possible that the Taliban, which has a great deal of local support, would simply take the initiative back in the next few months.
A few months ago at Labour Party conference, Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted that, in the long term, there would have to be talks with some elements of the Taliban.
But this welcome piece of realism was followed by defence planners indicating that they expected to be in Afghanistan for at least another 30 years.
Occupying forces in the past have discovered that local feeling is so strongly aligned against them that they have been driven out. Despite all of the deals being done between diplomats and local tribal groups, the indications are that history will repeat itself, but, this time, with even more bloody consequences than in the past.
Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North. He can be contacted at corbynj@parliament.uk