Jeremy Corbyn’s views on international affairs have aroused too little interest. At times naïve, foolish and offensive, they really did not matter when they appeared as the posturing of an eccentric backbencher. This all changes if the pollsters are right, and he becomes leader of the opposition and potential prime minister.
His most radical proposal is to leave the Nato alliance. The alliance was formed by the Labour government of Clement Attlee with partner countries. Its abolition has never been Labour policy.
Nato has been remarkably successful. In the 66 years since its inception, no two Nato countries have ever engaged in armed conflict with each other, and no Nato country has ever been invaded. This is a remarkable record, given that it includes countries such as France and Germany, and Greece and Turkey, nations which waged war with each other with depressing frequency in the preceding century.
It is also a stark contrast to the 35 years before Nato, when European counties were responsible for starting the two worst wars in the history of mankind. Both these wars started when the United Kingdom was without alliances, and Europe had no equivalent to Nato.
Even today, outside Nato, peace in Europe is difficult. War has ravaged the ex-Yugoslavian nations and armed incursions have beset Moldova and Ukraine.
This contrast between peace inside Nato, and war outside, is not a coincidence. Vladimir Putin has declared that it would be madness for Russia to attack a Nato country. Latvia, as a Nato country is not invaded, but three of Russia’s non-Nato neighbours (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova) have all been invaded.
However, Corbyn is not satisfied with the uncertainty of a future without alliances. He also wants to get rid of our nuclear defences.
The United Kingdom, without alliances and without nuclear weapons would be a weak military entity. We have only some 170 combat aircraft, and an army heading towards the size of the New York police department.
Outside Nato we see Russian expansionism and collapse in the Middle East. Iran has shown that a fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons is a real possibility in the years ahead. People in conflicted states are ‘voting with their feet’, anxious to reach the peace and opportunity of states in the European Union and Nato. All this creates a situation which calls for Europe to act together, not to break up and make ourselves vulnerable to attacks.
In the last resort, the nation’s security depends on its alliances and credible defences. To give up both is not just foolish, but deeply dangerous. If Jeremy Corbin is not stopped now, the Labour party will be cast in the worst possible light, as an unpatriotic party careless of the nation’s future and its defences.
———————————–
Richard Arthur is a former leader of the London borough of Camden
1) It’s naive to take Putin at his word.
2) Estonia has been invaded by Russia–in 2007, three years after its accession to NATO, via a days-long cyber war.
3) Estonia has been invaded a second time by Russia–this year, when Russia entered Estonia to kidnap an Estonian intelligence officer and bring him to Russia.
I disagree with Corbyn that the UK would be better off without NATO, but NATO’s usefulness is more frequently than in time past to be less than a panacea.
Eric Hines
LOL have fun Labour!
Additional comments about Cyber attacks along with the new forms of terrorism and warfare demonstrate that NATO was yesterday’s response.
It is true that NATO country’s have not been at war with each other, But then this is also true of the former Warsaw Pacts nations. If you have a military power that dominates/controls every single detail of all decision – making, whether this be Russia or the US then of course there will be no wars between such nations. The argument for a top – down military alliance would have some legs if the UK had a genuine independent nuclear force, but is has not. It is not our nuclear weapon, although of course we pay for them, although there is likely a genuine subsidy for doing so.
Because NATO is a military alliance then it plays military cat and mouse, as we see demonstrated with interference in Ukraine – by exciting Ukrainians to join some unspecified western commitments with the unspecified promise of a better life if they seek to gatecrash the ‘EU borders’ and move northwards for prosperity. Both NATO and the EU have a lot to answer for in the planting the seeds of future conflicts the future of which we have yet to see in refugee escapees from such ideological adventures. In a completely different sphere of interest we can see the military cat and mouse games employed by such alliances by looking at the US-South Korea joint air manoeuvres with whilst supporting the provocative ‘big speakers’ sky-scrapers at the North – South border Is that the demonstration of peace we want. What the UK needs is a truly independent defence force that is accountable to the British electorate and not be cajoled (by Blair – type figures) into wars that an ideologically driven Republican White House preferences for their own to self justification.
leave NATO cause that’s the experiment Corbyn Labour wants. Failure means going to the extreme
If you’re against NATO, an American imperialist organisation, then you’re unpatriotic?
Ridiculous!
Being strong, confident, and independent is patriotic.