The slick continuity of Labour’s policies with those of its Tory predecessor is striking. Whether it’s foreign policy, economic policy, or social policy — the question is, really, where has there been a break in continuity? Where is the change we need to benefit our communities, to restore and rebuild the lives, hopes, and opportunities of all of us?
As we head into Labour’s first conference as the party of government for 15 years, it’s clear that vision for change is absolutely absent. In its place comes a trumpeting of values that are alien to the best traditions of the labour movement — not least when it comes to foreign and defence policies.
Indeed, Labour’s position on so-called “defence” — actually war-fighting and militarism — is thoroughly reprehensible, underpinned by a rhetoric that is at times more extreme than that of the Tories.
The general election campaign was blighted by facile assertions of the “triple lock” on Trident, reducing policy on massively expensive weapons of mass destruction to a meaningless, glib catchphrase. And that was just part of a long and extraordinarily destructive list.
The Labour government’s policies are not only explicitly pro-nuclear weapons, they are also pro-increased arms spending, pro-war in Ukraine and Gaza, pro-Nato, and tied into the US ideological and military framework.
The government continues to back — and thereby facilitate — the terrible excesses of the Israeli forces in Gaza and the rest of occupied Palestine and condones their terrorist cyber attacks on Lebanon.
Keir Starmer champions the use of Nato long-range missiles by Ukraine into Russia, thereby openly risking direct war between nuclear-armed Nato and Russia.
This is the worst form of irresponsible grandstanding that could result in a conflict beyond comprehension, jeopardising all forms of life on Earth.
So, we are actually in a worsening situation in foreign and defence policy terms, and we need to assess our strategic approach to the new government. And we need to challenge the political agenda that it is pushing in the military sphere.
One of the first acts of the new government was to launch the process for a new strategic defence review (SDR). The review is being led by George Robertson — former defence secretary and Nato secretary-general, assisted by Fiona Hill, former presidential adviser to Donald Trump, and General Sir Richard Barrons, former deputy chief of the defence staff.
It’s hard to see how we’ll get new thinking on defence and security there. Due to report next year, the key purpose of the SDR appears to be to justify and provide for an increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP on military spending. It also seems designed to provide a big boost to the British arms industry, creating the false impression that military production can generate economic growth.
Both of these goals must be challenged by the labour and peace movements. But we must also challenge the overarching political framework of the SDR. The preamble of the SDR call for evidence observes that Britain faces threats that are growing and diversifying: war in Europe; conflict in the Middle East; as well as terrorist groups; hybrid attacks; and instability caused by climate change.
This is all self-evident, but what seems lacking is any understanding that successive British governments have all made these problems worse and that throwing more money at the military is not going to reduce conflict and war. On the contrary.
The fundamental problem is the government’s worldview. The preamble also refers to the growing threats from “states across the world that are increasingly acting in ways that challenge regional and global stability as well as our values and interests.”
What this really means is that the majority of the world is on track to multipolarity, that new economies are strengthening, and new values are being asserted — like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, led by the states of the global South.
And Britain — alongside the US and Nato — doesn’t want to accept this new reality and is willing to go to war to prevent it, possibly even to nuclear war.
Our movement has a different perspective on what is really going on in the world, and we reject the maintenance of Western global domination — that has been so destructive — through military, economic and political interventionism.
We have a vision of the kind of world we want to see — a world of peace, justice and equality, of sustainable economic development: policies that ensure that our planet — and all forms of life — will survive.
Source: Morning Star