Jeremy Corbyn - A Threat to Whose Security?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

16 September 15

aving won nearly 60% of first-round votes to become the British Labour Party’s new leader, the anti-war, anti-austerity, and pro-refugee Jeremy Corbyn now faces new smears as a ”threat to national security.” David Cameron, the Tory prime minister, is orchestrating the charge, accusing the mild-mannered Corbyn of undermining the United Kingdom’s defenses.

“Labour are now a serious risk to our national security, our economy’s security and your family’s security,”echoed UK defense secretary Michael Fallon.

“Whether it’s weakening our defenses, raising taxes on jobs, racking up more debt and welfare, or driving up the cost of living by printing money – Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party will hurt working people.”

The attacks foreshadow a parliamentary debate expected next month over David Cameron’s desire to join the United States and France in a major bombing campaign against Islamic State (ISIS) forces in Syria. Pushing for this authority for a long time, Cameron has acted without parliamentary approval in the targeted assassination by drone of two British citizens fighting for ISIS. His government has also deployed 5 pilots on airstrikes in Syria, embedded with other British personnel in “coalition forces.”

Cameron again proposed airstrikes last week as a response to the influx of refugees, though bombing would almost certainly increase the number of Syrians fleeing to Europe. From media reports, most of the current Syrian refugees appear to come from areas under barrel-bombing and ground attacks by the government of President Bashir al-Assad, who is receiving substantial support from Russia and Iran. Increased bombing of ISIS areas by NATO allies will only add to the refugee flood while increasing the likelihood of British boots on the ground.

“Of course, if we are going to defeat [ISIS] either in Iraq and Syria there will need to be boots on the ground,” the prime minister said in July, “but they should be Syrian boots or Iraqi boots.”

Cameron sought parliamentary permission in 2013 to bomb the Assad regime, but lost the vote when Labour’s leader at the time, Ed Miliband, refused his support, breaking the party’s long tradition of backing American foreign policy. Miliband’s courage, along with a diplomatic assist from Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, led President Obama to pull back from his planned military strike on Syria and to put new effort into achieving a nuclear deal with Iran.

Many observers saw this as a perfect moment for Russia and the US to work out a peace deal for Syria, which would have nipped the refugee crisis in the bud. According to former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin had proposed a peace plan over a year before.

“He said three things,” Ahtisaari told the Guardian this Tuesday. “One – we should not give arms to the opposition. Two – we should get a dialogue going between the opposition and Assad strait away. Three – we should find an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”

Would Putin have actually moved away from Assad? We will never know. Ahtisaari passed the proposal to the UN missions of the US, France, and Britain. “Nothing happened,” he said, and added that he thought they “were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything.”

By the end of summer 2013, as I noted at the time, Obama was already on two different tracks. On Syria, he had been covertly supporting the Sunni rebels and their Saudi sponsors for at least a year and a half, and – intentionally or not – appeared to have settled into the policy proposed in The New York Times by the Israeli-American policy analyst Edward Luttwak. “In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” he wrote, “By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.”

“Keep the lid on, but keep the pot boiling” turned out to be far more murderous than the straightforward regime change proposed by most neo-cons – and far more wrongheaded in light of both the refugee crisis and Islamic State.

By the end of September 2013, the Obama administration was also on an antagonistic track toward Russia, having fully committed itself to a second “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine. This led directly to the American-led coup I wrote about here (and here) against the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych and the newly escalating Cold War with Russia.

Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has made clear that he wants Britain to oppose both elements of American policy, and the bombing of Syria will be his first test. As many as 40 Labour MPs have signaled that they want to back the airstrikes, which – as Cameron well understands – would seriously undermine Corbyn’s leadership.

It will be fascinating to see how the long-time peace activist handles the challenge.

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.