Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Opinions
Britain's outgoing Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks in the House of Commons in central London, January 29, 2020: Jessica Taylor / UK Parliament / AFP
The British Labour Party sees itself as strongly internationalist but many members remain fixated by an Iraq ‘derangement syndrome’ that views the invasion of Iraq 17 years ago as the worst legacy of the Tony Blair government. Kurds often tell me that the “liberation” of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent military interventions to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) were welcome, to put it mildly.
In a 2003 column, American pundit and psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase ‘Bush derangement syndrome’ to describe “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush”. The same sort of reaction – one that is emotional rather than logical – can be seen among layers of the Labour left in response to Iraq.
British armed interventions have become a hot topic in the contest for the next Labour leader and deputy leader that concludes in early April. All candidates opposed the Iraq invasion. But Richard Burgon, a hard-left contender for deputy leader, goes much further in announcing a “Labour Peace Pledge”. It would ban Labour MPs from supporting military action, except in a national emergency, if backed by the United Nations, or by party members in an internal vote.
Burgon says party members should have a veto on military action and insulted MPs who ignorantly make grandiose speeches “like frustrated Churchills”. Burgon also damned fellow MPs for applauding a House of Commons speech in late 2015 by then-shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn supporting airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, including those besieging Kobane.
Benn couched this in Labour’s anti-fascist traditions and cited comments by Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)’s London Representative, who said swift Western airstrikes helped save Kurdistan in 2014.
Another deputy leadership candidate, Ian Murray MP, who sits on the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, rounded on Burgon’s proposals as not the way to win back power.
Murray wrote that many voters distrusted Labour on national security because the Corbyn leadership listened too much to hard-left anti-western groups, and was seen as pandering to Russia.
Burgon probably won’t win the contest, but outgoing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed his proposal, and Labour’s conference could yet adopt it, although it undermines good government and diplomacy in my view.
Parliament once accepted that MPs must agree on military action and then be held accountable. Blair stopped that by introducing a prior parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq.
Either way, elected MPs represent all constituents regardless of party affiliation. Giving the decision to unelected party activists makes Labour MPs delegates rather than public representatives who follow their consciences.
A party poll could hamper the element of surprise or credible threats of military action that can stall rogue states that may otherwise calculate they can get away with mass murder. Nor should Britain meekly accept the UN as the only moral yardstick, given Russian and Chinese vetoes. Furthermore, intelligence cannot always be shared without compromising sources and confidential discussions with other countries.
Victims could also be left in the lurch. Leadership contender Lisa Nandy also rejected Burgon’s plan, citing Sierra Leone and Rwanda as examples of where “people cannot wait for us to go and ballot Labour party members… We have a responsibility to protect and we have obligations to people outside our borders”.
It’s impossible to predict when British military power should be used as a last resort. It is easy to imagine scenarios that spark an ugly party bust-up that repels many voters and encourages inaction. Labour ministers could be cowed into concluding it’s not worth the hassle seeking party permission, even if they accept emergency military action.
Burgon’s pledge would turn bitter retrospection about 2003 Iraq into insular introspection and abandon victims when British armed forces can and should act, as with the no-fly zone in Kurdistan after the 1991 uprising.
As Ian Murray rightly says, Labour should “look forward, not back to 2003” with “a sensible national security policy” rather than indulging in “fantasy politics” in response to mistakes of nearly 20 years ago.
Burgon’s proposal shuts the stable door after the horse has bolted and, mixing metaphors, throws the baby out with the bathwater. It should be rejected in the name of good governance, proper internationalism, and victims who the UK can quickly help protect from future Saddams.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and a Fellow of Soran University. He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment