Weissman writes: "Having 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.'"
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: Natasha Quarmby/Rex Shutterstock)
Jeremy Corbyn - A Threat to Whose Security?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
16 September 15
Having 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.
<HTML><META HTTP-EQUIV="content-type"
CONTENT="text/html;charset=utf-8"><P></P><p class="contentpaneopen wtitle
artp"><p class="buttonheading"><A onclick="window.print();return false;"
href="#"></A><IMG alt="Print" src="/images/M_images/printButton.png"><A
onclick="window.print();return false;" href="#"></A> </DIV></DIV><p
class="contentpaneopen artp"><p class="art02"><P class="wtext"></P><P
class="imgon2"><IMG width="430" height="195" title="Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn. (photo: Natasha Quarmby/Rex Shutterstock)" style="border: 0px
currentColor;" alt="Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: Natasha Quarmby/Rex
Shutterstock)" src="/images/stories/article_imgs18/018022-corbyn-091615.jpg"
border="0"> <BR>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: Natasha Quarmby/Rex
Shutterstock)</P><P class="noslink"><A href="http://readersupportednews.org";
target="_blank"></A><IMG title="go to original article" alt="go to original
article" src="/images/stories/rsn_gotoarticle.jpg" border="0"><A
href="http://readersupportednews.org"; target="_blank"></A></P><p
class="txtimg"><BR><H1 class="txttitle">Jeremy Corbyn - A Threat to Whose
Security?</H1><P class="txtauthor">By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported
News</P><P class="date">16 September 15</P><P> </P><P><IMG
src="/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-H.jpg" border="0">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 â€threat to national security.†David Cameron, the Tory prime minister, is
orchestrating the <A title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-claims-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-threat-to-national-security-10498651.html";
target="_blank">charge</A>, accusing the mild-mannered Corbyn of undermining
the United Kingdom’s defenses. <P class="indent">“Labour are now a serious
risk to our national security, our economy’s security and your family’s
security,â€<A title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-is-a-national-security-risk-defence-secretary-claims-10498061.html";
target="_blank">echoed</A> UK defense secretary Michael Fallon.</P><P
class="indent">“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.â€</P><P
class="indent">The attacks foreshadow a <A title="This external link will open
in a new window"
href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b2590a26-5ae6-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015914/nbe/InTodaysFT/product#axzz3lhjN26P4";
target="_blank">parliamentary debate</A> 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 <A title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/drone-british-citizens-syria-uk-david-cameron";
target="_blank">targeted assassination</A> by drone of two British citizens
fighting for ISIS. His government has also <A title="This external link will
open in a new window"
href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8632f2da-2eb4-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3lhg2JphF";
target="_blank">deployed 5 pilots</A> on airstrikes in Syria, embedded with
other British personnel in “coalition forces.â€</P><P class="indent">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.</P><P class="indent">“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 <A title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8632f2da-2eb4-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3lhg2JphF";
target="_blank">said in July</A>, “but they should be Syrian boots or Iraqi
boots.†</P><P class="indent">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.</P><P class="indent">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.</P><P class="indent">“He said three things,†Ahtisaari <A
title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside";
target="_blank">told the Guardian</A> 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.â€</P><P class="indent">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.â€</P><P
class="indent">By the end of summer 2013, as I <A title="This external link
will open in a new window"
href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/19469-a-whiff-of-democracy?tmpl=component&";
target="_blank">noted</A> at the time, Obama was already on two different
tracks. On Syria, he had been <A title="This external link will open in a new
window"
href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/17615-focus-how-obama-fans-the-flames-of-islams-holy-wars";
target="_blank">covertly supporting</A> 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. “<A title="This external link
will open in a new window"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=1";
target="_blank">In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins</A>,†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.â€</P><P class="indent">“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.</P><P class="indent">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 <A
title="This external link will open in a new window"
href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev";
target="_blank">I wrote about here</A> (and <A title="This external link will
open in a new window"
href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22940-focus-part-ii-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev";
target="_blank">here</A>) against the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych
and the newly escalating Cold War with Russia.</P><P class="indent">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.</P><P class="indent">It will be fascinating to see how
the long-time peace activist handles the challenge.</P><BR><CENTER><HR size="3"
style="width: 25%;"></CENTER><P class="indent"><EM>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."</EM></P><P
class="indent">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.</P></DIV><p style="text-align: right; display: none;"><A
title="e-max.it: social marketing"
href="http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize"; target="_blank"
rel="nofollow"></A><IMG width="12" height="12" style="vertical-align: middle;"
alt="e-max.it: your social media marketing partner"
src="/plugins/content/easyopengraph/assets/img/social_media_marketing.png"><A
title="e-max.it: social marketing"
href="http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize"; target="_blank"
rel="nofollow"></A></DIV></DIV></DIV> <SPAN class="article_separator"> </SPAN>_
