CommonSpace columnist Jonathon Shafi says the establishment fears a Jeremy Corbyn who isn’t frightened to turn the tables on foreign policy
THIS COLUMN has dedicated a number of articles charting the relationship between terrorism and the far-right. Ive argued that there is a relationship between the two, in that they feed directly from each other and accelerate one another’s objectives.
So much of the time it has felt that this has been the dominant paradigm, and so often I have felt that sinking feeling that without an alternative view becoming part of a society-wide discussion, we drive further towards a racist backlash, more wars and authoritarianism.
But today we have another dynamic at work in relation to the issues to discuss in the wake of the atrocities visited upon innocent people in recent weeks. And that is, that we are seeing the emergence of a real debate about terrorism and how to confront it, despite some of the mainstream media trying to cover it up.
We are seeing the emergence of a real debate about terrorism and how to confront it, despite some of the mainstream media trying to cover it up.
This has been the case since the Iraq war, but it has been amplified recently thanks to the bravery of a certain politician who has been ridiculed on the issue of security.
Jeremy Corbyn has taken the lead on this. He has been rooted in the UK anti-war movement since it began, and has a clear understanding of imperialism. It is a genuinely new development in modern Western politics to have someone with his level of understanding at the head of a major political party taking part in a national election.
What do I mean? Well, it’s not just about opposing war. Many mainstream politicians oppose this or that conflict – but they don’t really understand why it’s a conflict in the first place beyond the superficial. It’s also not just about saying you oppose nuclear weapons. It’s about really grasping how the state system functions, how it drives conflict and about how it is tied in to global capitalism.
And, it’s about having the ability to say things that go against the grain when it comes to highly sensitive issues, particularly in relation to terrorism.
In the midst of the pressures of an election campaign, where parties feel the need to avoid controversy and triangulate, Corbyn has catalysed a serious debate by standing up and saying what he is not supposed to be allowed to say.
This has been the case since the Iraq war, but it has been amplified recently thanks to the bravery of a certain politician who has been ridiculed on the issue of security: Jeremy Corbyn.
Instead of rallying around platitudes and calling for an intensification of the ‘war on terror’, he said that we needed a totally new direction. He said our foreign policy was counter-productive.
He said that the defence of democracy and civil liberties were paramount. He didn’t politicise the events in the crude manner in which May did. He laid out a different approach, and to do that takes courage and conviction.
It’s little wonder, then, that the press have gone in to overdrive. They call him a traitor, but more than that, a soft touch on terrorism. He is, in some way, responsible – and can never be trusted. Indeed, he himself is depicted an insurgent and a threat to the security of the realm.
But what’s fascinating is this: despite all of the propaganda, and despite the Tories being traditionally seen as the party of law and order, a majority of the public agree with Corbyn’s approach.
An ORB survey for The Independent found that 75 per cent of people believe interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have made atrocities on UK soil more likely. In agreement with Corbyn.
It is a genuinely new development in modern Western politics to have someone with his level of understanding at the head of a major political party taking part in a national election.
That follows a YouGov poll taken after his speech after the Manchester attack which showed 53 per cent agreed with his stance that the failure of British foreign policy was implicated in making us less safe.
And it stands to reason. It’s what intelligence officials say. It’s what they warned about the Iraq war. And didn’t the police warn May about cuts affecting their ability to monitor and diffuse potential terrorist attacks?
But it’s not from these places that Corbyn finds the encouragement to speak out. In fact, it is the legacy of the historic anti-war movement that made these very points, from bellow and in historic numbers.
These arguments have been going on for some time, but like so many other things that have come up in this election, they just have not had the same presence that is afforded by a political leader hoping to become the next prime minister raising them directly in the middle of an election after an atrocity.
And it’s drawing out confidence in people who have long refused to go along with the idea that the best response to terror is to scrap human rights, clamp down on muslims, take away our civil liberties and suspend our democracy.
But what’s fascinating is this: despite all of the propaganda, and despite the Tories being traditionally seen as the party of law and order, a majority of the public agree with Corbyn’s approach.
We say no. We say confidently, and without wavering, that these measures only aid terrorism. They give the terrorists what they want.
Meanwhile, May has been politicising the attacks for her own gain, using the worst dog whistle politics and pursing authoritarian goals. Look at this quote, where she also manages to attack the public sector:
“While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society.
“That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations. But the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives, not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom.”
Corbyn, on the other hand, has been calling for solidarity, because he also understands something else – that the far right has a strategy to provoke civil conflict in the aftermath of each attack, a conflict that Isis also wants to provoke. And remember: May is selling armaments to Saudi Arabia, while Corbyn has exposed this and called for it to stop.
It’s drawing out confidence in people who have long refused to go along with the idea that the best response to terror is to scrap human rights, clamp down on muslims, take away our civil liberties and suspend our democracy.
Do you see just how irresponsible May is? And shouldn’t we reflect on the fact that those who claim to be the “toughest” on terrorism are actually the weakest in reality?
When you really think about it, it’s unsettling. May has got to go, but so too does the system that produces such a situation. Corbyn knows this, and that’s why the establishment detests and fears him so much.
The last word goes to Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, an organisation that has played a central role in maintaining these arguments in campaigns since 2001, in which Corbyn has played a leading role:
“There needs to be an honest debate about how we deal with terrorism, but it has to start with a recognition that the policy carried out by successive governments has only worsened the situation.
“The best way to take that debate forward would be to defeat Theresa May on Thursday. That would have the added benefit of un-inviting Trump to London.
“I’m sure most Londoners want nothing to do with him and resent his blatant racism and politicking over this tragedy.”
Picture courtesy of Jonathon Shafi
Check out what people are saying about how important CommonSpace is: Pledge your support today.
