Airstrikes in Syria are everything Jeremy Corbyn stands against

It has been announced that Jeremy Corbyn will not put his whips to use and will allow his Labour MPs a free vote on the decision whether to initiate airstrikes on ISIL forces in Syria.

David Cameron’s proposal to strike ISIS in Syria is expected to push through on the side of yay with a huge majority of Conservative MPs and some Labour MPs expected to vote in favour of air strikes. If the proposal is passed then British air strikes will be extended into Syria, British jets are currently striking region of Iraq.

The move to allow a free vote for his MPs is thought to be the correct one. It is predicted that in regards to percentages it would not make a major difference to the voting outcome if Corbyn was to instruct his party whips to prioritise voting against David Cameron’s proposal. Furthermore, if Corbyn did indeed force Labour MPs to vote against Cameron’s proposals then the move would not have been popular among Labour MPs and would likely increase tensions within the party. On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn has reiterated that the party’s stance is against airstrikes on ISIS – in Syria.

Before today rumors were abound that Jeremy Corbyn would instruct his party whips to force Labour MPs to vote against air strikes in Syria. The Labour leader has been a staunch anti-war MP throughout his life as a public servant. Corbyn has campaigned against the war in Iraq, he voted against air strikes against Gadaffi in Libya and has campaigned on human rights issues abroad as well as anti-austerity measures in the UK.

Despite Corbyn allowing his MPs a free vote this is not to say that he isn’t 100% against an increase in airstrikes in the region. In terms of political power, Jeremy Corbyn has never been more powerful than he is now – he is the leader of the second biggest political party in the country. But disappointingly for Corbyn supporters, Corbyn has had little effect in parliament thus far. Corbyn’s first responsibility is to unite the Labour party under his banner – easier said then done. Corbyns hard left-wing approach takes the labour party in an opposite direction to that which Blair and even Milliband lead them, but some MPs in the Labour party seemingly do not like this.

MPs such as Andy Burnham have clashed with Corbyn on certain views in the past and compared with the Conservative party, which is in its second term in power, the Labour party is a mess. If Corbyn is to be Prime Minister in 2020 then he needs to do what Ed Milliband failed to do – Corbyn must unite his party and bring it away from the middle right wing. Milliband was criticised from failing to prioritise anti-austerity in the run up to the 2015 election, Corbyn must make the party a party of the people, he must raise the living wage and not punish the poorer sections of society in a way that the Conservatives are currently specialising in doing.

 

 

Air-strikes in Northern Syria: Who wins?

David Cameron today made a speech stating that the UK cannot and should not stand a-side and let other countries carry the burden of ISIS – and asks in the commons: ‘If not now, when?’ The PM has urged MPs to back anti-ISIL UK airstrikes in Northern Syria, saying that ISIS are using the sanctuary of Northern Syria to launch plots with deadly intent against the British people.

Smoke rises over Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike, as seen from the Mursitpinar border crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border in the town of Suruc in this file October 18, 2014 file photo.

Earlier this month the Foreign Select Committee issued a report to MPs urging caution surrounding air strikes in Syria – the Foreign Select Committee in the UK expressly state that airstrikes in Syria would have ‘minimal effect’ – it has been argued that Syria will just end up becoming another Iraq-esque disaster. Critics against proposed airstrikes in Syria have continually pointed out that, like Libya and Iraq, the UK does not have any post-air strike plans to support the innocent civilians who will be directly affected by UK airstrikes in the region – but in a mirrored image of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – innocent civilians are not in the forefront of our high ranking MPs thoughts nor are they the number one concern for the majority of the British public.

The phenomenon of Islamic extremism strongly divides opinion. We are living in fear of an imminent terror attack following the Paris attacks a little over 10 days ago. By all accounts, the worst terror attacks on France to date. Many lives affected drastically both direct and indirectly by young cold-hearted gunmen. It is difficult for one to imagine such events taking place in Paris prior to the actual sustained incidents. As a western and European country, one would imagine France will be thoroughly aware of the danger posed by the sickening death cult Daesh, infamously known as ISIS. Did the victims pay the price for the failures from the security services? Was it an inevitable outcome; owing to France’ involvement with the on-going war on terror? Nothing is certain in the face of such real horror. Images of blood stained pavements and shattered glass windows echoed the accounts of rampant terror the night before. Unanswered questions from the mainstream media, forced most to turn to social networking sites for live developments and instant information, horrific moments that shocked world over. Some question if there sufficient warnings fatally ignored by the French government.

An overview of ISIS controlled zones

Friday November 13^th was like any other day in the city of Paris but the night will not easily be forgotten, such is true particularly for the residents and families of the victims. The beautiful city of Paris of left tarnished by the unsuspecting terror unleashed upon its streets. Islamic state quickly claimed responsibility for the horrific wave of attacks. We are told often, young people who join the ranks of ISIS are suffering from social exclusion and pressures which leads them into the direction of so-called Jihadist groups. The security forces in Paris were assembled relatively quickly, a marker which distinguishes the West and other regions. The recent attacks in Tunisia, which saw a lone wolf terrorist shoot and use grenades to target tourists, exposed just how long it takes their security forces to assemble. Similarly also security measures in Egypt were recently scrutinized. How tough should the West be in the fight against terror? That is the primary question that our politicians must address. We all have a breaking point, western states have retaliated and Britain remains tentative in our effort to engage in Syria, whilst seemingly strengthening our security.

The innocent people going about their lives in Syria should not be forgotten

Prime Minister David Cameron has tried to expedite the decision-making process regarding Syria – he is demanding that Britain takes action. But in order for this to happen Cameron needs to convince the House of Commons – specifically Labour MPs to vote for anti-ISIL airstrikes. It is currently unknown whether the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will allow his Labour MPs to vote individually on the bill – Corbyn has been very clear in his thoughts that the UK should not be involved in yet another conflict in the middle-east on the back of the disaster surrounding UK aggression in Iraq and Libya. However, David Cameron has stated that a new government in Syria is required to meet the needs of the Syrian people. Incidentally, the same rhetoric was used by MPs before the invasion of Iraq and before Gaddafi was ousted as Libyan leader. Following the war in Iraq it is estimated that up to 500,000 Iraqis have died with around 118,000 of those being innocent civilians whilst thousands of Libyan civilians died following the 2011 invasion of the country. Clearly, the Iraqi people nor the Libyan people are not any better off following UK invasions in the aforementioned countries – so why should Syria be any different?

Winston Churchill said that ‘those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it’ and it seems that the only losers are the families of UK military men and women and the millions of innocent civilians who feel the stings of rich MPs and their voting ballots.

Political Imperialism is not the Answer to Terrorism

Friday night gave the western world their clearest glimpse yet into the atrocities that ISIS are capable of. 129 people were murdered in Paris by ISIS gunmen and ISIS made bombs with many more injured. The barbarity of the acts committed by ISIS has left the world in mourning for the people of Paris and rightly so, the hashtag #prayforparis has been trending across social media since the attacks took place. The French President Francois Hollande declared that France is at war and has since shut France’s borders to all Muslims, the country has also stepped up its air strikes against ISIS. The harrowing picture on the left which has been shared all over social media indicates the animosity the public feel towards ISIS following the Paris attacks but it is important to remember that hatred breeds hatred and violence breeds violence – the war against terrorism is not a war that France nor any other country can win. Imperialistic politics simply does not work in the long term.

Political imperialism has been a basic component of foreign policy throughout history. Japanese, Chinese, Roman, Byzantine and Persian empires have all established the practice of political imperialism in order to gain power, influence and money. The British post-colonial theorist Robert Young writes that Imperialism is a state policy and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons. Indeed, at the heart of political imperialism is war and violence – remember, despite the cruelties caused, war is extremely profitable for some people.

A Lockheed Martin created missile design

Defense and security companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing directly profit from war. In 2014, Lockheed Martin recorded profits of over $3.6 billion whilst Boeing’s net profits in 2014 were over $5.4 billion. The more war the more profit for Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors. Pope Francis recently spoke of how many companies across the world profit from war, he stated that these corporations make money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.

It was the Bush administration that took America and indeed Tony Blair’s Labour government to war with Iraq back in the early 2000s. Troops were also deployed in Afghanistan. President Bush’s war on terror probably did kill terrorists, however, it also killed millions of innocent civilians as well as ruin the lives of a countless amount of innocent people – the human cost of war is astronomical – and did Bush’s war on terror halt, stall or eradicate terrorism from the world? Absolutely not.

Under the Obama administration things have not changed. Indeed, US weapons exports under Obama have risen 23% since the Bush administration – not since World War 2 have US weapons exports been so high. It seems that the only plan the US seems necessary to implement on the fight against terrorism is to spend billions of dollars on weapons in order to ‘eradicate terrorism’. As history tells us – this plan does not work – terrorism has increased ten fold since 9/11 yet western governments are spewing out the same rhetoric again and again and again.

Since the Paris attacks David Cameron, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande have all stated how the western world is ‘under attack’ from these terrorists and that the only way to eliminate the threat of terrorism is to kill them – of course in political double speak world leaders do not word this in such a way. However, as aforementioned this does not work – Bush and Blair went to war to eliminate the threat of terrorism but they only succeeded in creating more terrorists at the cost of countless human lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

It goes without saying that the killing of innocent lives in order to adhere to a political agenda is both inhumane and not tolerated and rightly so, but to fight violence with violence is equally inhumane and has proven to just increase the threat of terrorism. The political commentary following the Paris attacks has bordered on barbaric. Twitter users and journalists alike across the western world have rightly criticised terrorism but with this has come vile hate speech directed at the entire religion of Islam – European citizens have demanded their borders be closed so as not to allow any more potential terrorists into their country – it seems that terrorists are ideologically from the middle east in nationality and are Muslim in religion – this suits western government narratives nicely. The consciousness of nations are being poisoned with imperialistic politics, we have unconsciously accepted that the only way to fight against violence and terrorism is to use our own breed of violence and terrorism.

Pro war/anti war comparison of news sources during the 2003 Iraq war

The political imperialism of western countries in recent decades has unfortunately created many of the terrorist organisations that we see today – ISIS included. In the short term imperialism is a very profitable foreign policy – in terms of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, defence contractors made money through the sale of weapons whilst the American government profited heavily from the occupation Iraqi oil fields. But fast forward 10 or so years and the foreign region where imperialism has been practiced (in this case Iraq) has been completely decimated and the people who once lived peacefully with their families (or at least more peacefully than they do now) have now turned to terrorism in order to initiate revenge against their oppressors.

Of course imperialism has its justifications – British social scientist John Hobson identifies this justification on the grounds that: “It is desirable that the earth should be peopled, governed, and developed, as far as possible, by the races which can do this work best, i.e. by the races of highest ‘social efficiency'”. As far as this description of imperialism is concerned these imperialist regimes fully believe that they have the worlds best interests at heart.

Each time a terrorist incident is recorded in the western world governments and the general public go into deep mourning in respect of the lost lives – after that governments increase their ground forces and/or air strikes against terrorist occupied reasons and a circle of death and ruin is created – this circle like terrorism will not come to an end so long as political imperialism and violence is used as a foreign policy.

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Security, Tax Credits and Tory Policy

Economic security is really crucial when inspecting the wider security nexus. It is clear that the safety of individual states proves to be a very important theme in world politics, especially where the economy is concerned. To be precise with definition, economic security is broadly; access to resources, finance and world markets, maintenance of state welfare and power. The contemporary importance of economic security stems from the broadening of security conceptualisation since the end of the Cold War; this indicates the significant shift from geo-politics to economic defined interactions. Furthermore, it is a demonstration of the transfer from military superpowers to fast-growing economies such as China; also there is a clear indication in this modern era that the competition and conversation is changing from the ideological to economic debates.

Many globalisation specialists argue that economic globalisation, reflecting an increasingly interdependent global economy, not only undermines a state’s capacity to pursue independent macroeconomic and development strategies but also exacerbates existing inequalities between and within countries.

There is a controversy regarding economic inequality, the capitalist economic system will inevitably produce greater inequalities and more shocking forms of exploitation. Others argue that global inequality is declining and will continue to decline as economic globalisation progresses. One of the key impacts of economic development in this era of globalisation is the reality women face in the modern workforce. Just a couple of days ago it was revealed that a head teacher at a school in Regents Park stated to her pupils that there is still a glass ceiling for women and they must choose between a career and motherhood. Now, many would consider whether the head teacher was right in saying that. The fact is, it does come down to choice but what we must applaud is the fact that issues surrounding gender are now widely and increasingly discussed. There is increasing participation of women in the global workforce, there are more women in top jobs in the FTSE 100 companies. The feminisation of labour has also seen positives changes to work structures and culture.

Economic security is evidently high on the political agenda, we have recently witnessed more cuts to public sector jobs, junior doctors are being pressured to work a 7-day week, tax credit cuts linger, cuts to police, civil servants and cuts to university budgets, leading to continued unrest. David Cameron and George Osborne are the leaders of the Tory economic policy machine and its principle supporters. Both men are engaged in efforts to continue attempts to sell austerity to the country, on the basis that it will stabilise the economy and sure up the recovery. Cutting tax credits is still extremely high on Chancellor Osbourne’s agenda. However, the leader of the Opposition party insists that Tory economic policies are too far too fast, and make the case for slower cuts and greater economic stimulus. Policy and protest groups make a strong case that financial austerity is in essence completely unnecessary and they continue to protest activity against banking and big business encroachment in politics.

Our economists, politicians and social commentators furiously contradict one another with regard to economic security. The general public are almost caught in the middle, disaffected by declining standards of living and convoluted economics which seem to have precious little social benefit. The knock on effects on economic policy encapsulates budget cuts, public sector job cuts, the UK’s operating budget deficit, university tuition fee increases, NHS and welfare reforms and most recently tax credit cuts. The austerity debate needs to remain an economic and moral debate not an ideological debate, this is important in order to prevent the Tory government from distracting the public from the real consequences of tax credit cuts. The House of Lords intervention has forced Osborne to go back to the drawing table and rethink the cuts rather than trying to sneak them into bills. The fact is that many developed countries live in a supportive society which promotes welfare and good education. What is also fact is that Britain is known for its excellent NHS yet the government is endangering the system and punishing the working people.