Corbyn must oppose an attack on Syria; lives may depend on it

The Labour Party has changed forever the way that British foreign policy is conducted. This process has taken nearly fifteen years and began with Tony Blair’s hysterical reaction to the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It continued with Ed Miliband’s unprecedented parliamentary victory against Syrian intervention in 2013. It has been completed through the election of Jeremy Corbyn, a long-term peacenik, who has said that he is ready to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for its small but important role in the invasion of Iraq. The circle has been completed.

These three characters do not see eye-to-eye, and their motivations for making these ground-breaking changes were and are not always clear cut. While they each appreciated the gravity of their own choices, they could never predict the circumstances surrounding the choices future leaders would have to ponder.

Tony Blair’s role in this was inadvertent. Through the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set a precedent for wars going wrong. With the ineptitude and mendacity of his spin doctors, he demonstrated that even Western liberal governments frequently lie about why we are going to war. His actions highlighted the dangers of unconditional Anglo-American friendship through his pathetic simpering under the boot of George W. Bush.

Ed Miliband’s was far more deliberate. Talk to Conservatives and you’ll hear that his opposition on Syria in 2013 was a cynical party political move, a despicable act of self-interest that sacrificed the Syrian people to unabated bloodshed. Talk to pro-war Labourites and you’ll hear that Miliband simply made the wrong call. Regardless of why he did this, the vote had two effects. First, it suggested that cross-party support for military action proposed by the sitting government was, since Blair’s flagrant mistake, no longer assured. This is undoubtedly “a good thing”; Labour MPs, their more sensible Conservative counterparts and much of the military establishment agree that opposition to the plan was justified because there was no clear long-term strategy. Intervening may have saved lives, through good fortune more than good planning, but it most likely would have made the situation a whole lot worse. Second, and more worrying, it made Cameron cautious of going to Parliament for his permissions. The recent drone strikes in Syria, and rumours of a Number Ten plan to continue such a programme, are a grim indicator of this.

Finally, there is the role of Jeremy Corbyn; his long-standing objections to Britain’s post-Empire violence stem from a genuine sense of personal responsibility. Like Corbyn or hate him, he is a principled man. His record on standing for peace is unparalleled in the British parliament.

What these three men have changed is quite simple; they have broken the consensus convention on foreign policy, the idea that political parties should not quibble between each other over matters of national security and so present a united front to the British people whenever we go to war. Breaking this assumption that we do not debate about going to war is essential.

In general (and there are exceptions that prove the rule), domestic policies, no matter how poorly formed, are unlikely to unleash the kind of chaos on humanity that foreign policy mistakes can and do. Health service waiting lists can be uncomfortable, and occasionally extremely dangerous, but lengthening them through poor management of the NHS will never come close to wreaking the kind of havoc that this nation has imposed on the people of Iraq or Libya. House prices may rise and fall, but an expensive mortgage doesn’t really compare to a Reaper drone accidentally blowing up a group of innocent women and children. We may talk of reform of the House of Lords, or moving constituency boundaries; of dithering between technicalities in election law; but Britain is unlikely to be invaded, abandoned, and then have Daesh establish itself in Kent.

In short, the stakes involved in foreign and defence policy are higher than any linked to domestic issues. As such, having political consensus between the two major political parties on national security issues should never, ever have been the norm. The people who bear the brunt of our foreign policy mistakes may not be British, but they are people nonetheless; they are innocent people who we claim to be “helping” when we arrive in tanks and fighter jets and drones, but who we abandon the minute that the war turns sour.

Jeremy Corbyn appears to have learnt from Blair’s mistakes and Miliband’s prototype model of opposition, and is now ready to oppose the government fully and properly on issues surrounding war.

Unfortunately, he has chosen not to make the apology for Iraq at this week’s Labour Party conference, despite it being trailed heavily by the media. His Deputy Leader Tom Watson, who voted in favour of the invasion and was ambiguous on whether the Chilcot Inquiry should go ahead, is believed to have influenced this decision.

This is an immense disappointment. Corbyn’s spin doctors told the media that they did not want it to overshadow his other announcements. He chose instead to make comments about Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and Britain’s “uncritical support” of these strange regimes. That is a start. Yet as Britain hovers dangerously close to more military action in Syria, the new Labour leader must use the unusual legacy of his predecessors to best advantage; lives, albeit not British lives, depend on it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.