Home » Posts tagged 'airstrikes'
Tag Archives: airstrikes
On responsibility
David Cameron clearly can’t break the habit of a lifetime: he’s going to play the race card again. He seems to have set in motion a nice little scare story. An agreement made some years ago between the UK and France allows UK border control officials to police the borders between France and the UK on the French side in order to stop asylum seekers from ever arriving on British soil. This is a local version of the wider system of Airport Liaison Officers (ALOs) who since the 1990s have been sent to a number of what are called “refugee-producing countries” – that is, persecuting countries – in order to help them stop their terrified citizens from fleeing their borders and applying for asylum here.
Now Cameron is suggesting that if the EU referendum results in the UK leaving the EU France may renege on that agreement, resulting in uncontrolled migration to our shores and migrant camps on the beach at Dover instead of Calais. So the message is vote to stay in the EU and we’ll keep the barbarians out.
Well, I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote. But however I vote it won’t be based on some imagined need to keep refugees out. This refugee crisis, perhaps more than any other, is of our own making. “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war”, said Churchill (of all people!). But the US chose war in Afghanistan as revenge for the Twin Towers and to get rid of the Taliban and al-Quaida. It failed and, with our help, left the country in a mess with the Taliban still alive and kicking today; we chose war in Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction which we knew it didn’t have, left it hopelessly divided and paved the way for the rise of ISIS. We intervened in Libya to save it from Gaddafi and, yes, you’ve guessed it, left it in a mess – arguably, as in the case of Iraq, in a worse mess than it was in under the regime we were so eager to get rid of. Now we’ve agreed to join the airstrikes in Syria, and there’s talk of further military action in Libya (its “peace talks”, like those on Syria, having broken down). All of these interventions have produced innocent victims and, despite claims of “smart bombs” (not again, please), there will be more innocent victims. All these interventions have produced refugees and will continue to do so.
So I’m for the UK taking responsibility for the refugees it has helped to create, in line with its obligations under the Refugee Convention which it has signed. I’m for peace talks, diplomacy, all sorts of jaw-jaw. Whether we are in the EU or out, I’m against Airport Liaison Officers or anybody else preventing people fleeing unmentionable horrors from finding shelter here. And if the EU states are incapable of finding ways to share responsibility for refugees among themselves, perhaps the club is not worth belonging to after all.
I don’t like ending on what feels like a negative note, but it’s all I can manage tonight. Here’s the Cameron story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35519210
A chance to break the cycle of war?
Before you read this, David Cameron may have announced that he will put his proposals for UK airstrikes on ISIL in Syria to parliament this week. If the Commons votes Yes to those proposals it will make UK military support for US attacks official, as opposed to the till-now-unofficial support, most of which has been unacknowledged, although we learnt belatedly of the drone attack that killed two UK citizens quite recently.
How should Labour MPs vote?
On the face of it, they ought to vote No. The Labour Party Conference in September voted against military action in Syria unless four strict conditions were met. The proposer of the emergency motion, Ivan Monckton, a member of Unite, made his reasons for proposing the motion clear. For one thing, he doesn’t want the party involved in “another illegal war”. Plus (and what a plus it is):
“The repeated British interventions into the Middle East at the behest of the US have seen huge resources ploughed into conflicts – each of which has further destabilised the region, creating still more refugees and led to uncounted civilian deaths.
“It is time to break this cycle of war, which is why this party must tell Cameron to pause for thought. Over the past year, there have been some 6,000 airstrikes on Iraq and Syria by the US and its allies. They have dropped over 20,000 bombs.
“The outcome has been that Isis has expanded the territory that it controls still further. There is no evidence that more bombing will lead to a different outcome.”
And the four conditions?
- Military action must have UN authorisation.
- There must be a comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance for refugees displaced by the action.
- The bombing must be directed exclusively at military targets associated with ISIL.
- Military action must be subordinated to international diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria.
To quote Rajeev Syal in The Guardian: “The conditions will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet in the short term.”[1] So, if conditions aren’t met, how should MPs vote?
You know already, dear reader, what I’m going to say. They should vote No.
But will they? About half the shadow cabinet is against a No vote. About 50 Labour MPs seem to be conspiring with the Tories to ensure a Yes vote.[2] Plus, Rajeev Syal tells us that “conference motions are advisory rather than binding”. I believe him. There’s a long history of conference decisions made in Brighton, Blackpool and Scarborough which have then been routinely trampled on by Labour leaderships after the conference has safely ended. This history goes back at least to Harold Wilson and probably even further – but I shouldn’t claim more than I can remember!
But we are in a new era now, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn. Policy is no longer to be imposed but debated by the party and agreed. This policy has been debated and agreed. If time had allowed it, there could have been a longer and wider debate right across the party branches, taking into full account the views of the new influx of members and supporters – the kind of debate that Jeremy Corbyn is arguing for. But time waits for nobody. If that had happened I suspect the answer would have been an even more resounding No to another war.
So I’ve written to Alan Johnson (he’s my MP – it’s best to start at home, eh?!) asking him to vote No.
There’s talk of a “free vote” for MPs on grounds of “conscience”. This is part of Jeremy’s willingness to listen to opponents, to be democratic, inclusive, to put an end to the old undemocratic, contemptuous ways of the past (Wilson saw his critics as dogs that could be told to stop barking: “Every dog has his day,” said he.) But I want Jeremy to do something else now, and he can do it without giving up his clearly demonstrated commitment to democracy, inclusiveness and respect. He has a wider audience to listen to and to heed than just the Parliamentary Labour Party. There’s all of us – who, when he stood for the leadership, saw some light at the end of the tunnel. Now, to make that more than wishful thinking, Jeremy needs to listen to us all, forget free votes, and pull Labour MPs into line behind a democratic conference decision and a mass movement that demanded and still demands change.
[1] Syal, R., “Labour conference sets terms for supporting UK military action in Syria”, The Guardian, 30 September 2015.
[2] Helm, T. & Boffey, D., “More than 50 Labour MPs to defy Jeremy Corbyn in vote on Syria”, The Observer, 10 October 2015.
Bob Mouncer's blog 