• 63
  • 378
  • 40
  • 97
756 SHARES

Labour's Commitment to Sound Defence and Opposition to Tyranny: A Call to Demonstrate Strength in Support of Ukraine

Wednesday, 03 January 2024 03:35 Opinion

Labour's Historical Commitment to Defence: A Call for Leadership in the Face of Modern Tyranny

In the current geopolitical landscape, echoes of the 1930s and 1940s reverberate, marking the second age of dictators. Keir Starmer's Labour Party, rooted in a legacy of postwar collective security, now grapples with the challenges posed by despots acting with impunity on the global stage.

The recent Christmas trip by Keir Starmer and John Healey to a Nato base in Estonia, where British troops are stationed, has brought defence back to the forefront of political discourse. This moment invites reflection on Labour's historical pedigree in foreign policy, its stance against tyranny, and its performance in the face of modern challenges.

History, ideology, values, and the founding principles of Labour's foreign policy position it as the natural anti-dictatorship party. Ernest Bevin's leadership saw the creation of the postwar collective security architecture, emphasizing self-determination, self-defence, and multilateral security guarantees.

In the contemporary context, facing despotic actions by leaders like Putin, Aliyev, Xi Jinping, and Iran's sponsorship of proxy wars, Labour has the opportunity to reclaim its role as a leading voice against dictatorships in European politics. With a focus on Ukraine, Labour could advocate for full Nato membership, invoking Article 5, which considers an attack on one ally an attack on all. However, the party has lagged behind as the Conservative government seized the narrative in supporting Ukraine.

In contrast, Boris Johnson's grandstanding support for Ukraine, epitomized by his symbolic visit to Kyiv, has garnered popularity. While Johnson's actions resonate with the Ukrainian people, Labour must step up and become the leading advocate for Nato membership, highlighting the threats posed by the axis of dictatorships – Russia, Azerbaijan, China, Iran, and North Korea.

As the world grapples with contemporary challenges reminiscent of a bygone era, Labour's historical commitment to sound defence and opposition to tyranny positions it to lead the charge against the forces that threaten global freedom. The party's voice should resonate not only in British politics but also on the international stage, reclaiming its role as a staunch defender of collective security and the values that underpin a just world order.

The UK's Stance on Ukrainian Crisis: Labour's Call for a Robust Approach

The UK's military assistance program in support of Ukraine has emerged as a rare point of consensus between Labour and the Conservatives, signaling a united front against Russian aggression. However, the nature of this consensus, aimed at providing support without direct engagement in defeating the invading army, raises concerns. This agreement, born out of a historical aversion to appeasement within the Labour party, requires scrutiny.

In the past, Labour's DNA has been marked by an anti-appeasement stance, notably demonstrated during the Falklands debate when Michael Foot compelled Margaret Thatcher to dispatch the taskforce. The party's legacy includes standing against dictatorships in conflicts like Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where regimes were toppled, albeit with significant human costs.

Given Labour's history of dismantling the British empire, contributing to the independent nuclear deterrent, and co-founding Nato, there's a proud record to uphold. The current consensus, providing enough support to prevent Ukraine's defeat but not enough for victory, demands reevaluation.

Labour should be leading a robust debate on whether the UK has done enough, pushing for accelerated Nato membership for Ukraine, advocating for the delivery of air power, and critiquing the adequacy of assistance provided so far. The party, rooted in the legacies of Bevin and Foot, should question the partnership between the Conservatives and Russian oligarchs, scrutinize the funding ties between Brexit and Russian money, challenge the shortcomings of UK sanctions against Russian entities, and call for a thorough supply chain analysis of components used in Russian weapons causing civilian casualties in Ukraine.

In a time where the UK's approach to the Ukrainian crisis demands scrutiny, Labour must be at the forefront of forcing a more assertive stance, ensuring that the principles of anti-appeasement are not compromised and that the nation's commitment to defending freedom and democracy is unwavering.

The Broader Failures of Tory Foreign Policy: Labour's Call for a Strategic Shift

Beyond the immediate crisis in Ukraine, the shortcomings of Tory foreign policy extend to other geopolitical challenges, notably the lack of meaningful action or critique regarding Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh. This dictatorship, acting with impunity, has displaced 120,000 people from contested territory, prompting questions about the Tory government's response.

Some speculate about the role of BP's stake in the Azeri energy sector influencing the government's inaction. This failure demands greater attention from the opposition, with Labour uniquely positioned to stake its claim as the party championing national security and the defense of the realm.

Labour's strategic, economic, and political interests align with taking a decisive stance on these issues. Beyond symbolic photo ops, real change requires a policy shift as monumental as the independence of the Bank of England. In this context, Labour should champion full support for Nato membership for Ukraine and advocate for ensuring the safety of Ukraine's skies. This bold move would draw a clear distinction between the parties, marked by red, blue, and yellow waters.

Authored by Brian Brivati, a visiting professor at Kingston School of Art and the author of 'Losing Afghanistan: The Fall of Kabul and the End of Western Intervention,' this call for a recalibration in foreign policy underscores the need for a party willing to go beyond rhetoric, offering tangible solutions to safeguard global stability.

As public discourse remains central to shaping foreign policy, readers are invited to submit responses of up to 300 words by email for consideration in the letters section. Engaging in this dialogue ensures a multifaceted exploration of the challenges and potential solutions in navigating the complexities of foreign affairs.

In conclusion, the analysis by Brian Brivati underscores the broader failures in Tory foreign policy, urging Labour to assert itself as the party of national security and defense. The inadequacies extend beyond Ukraine to Azerbaijan, raising questions about the government's response, possibly influenced by economic interests.

The call for Labour to champion a strategic shift, including full support for Ukraine's Nato membership and securing its skies, is not merely a policy suggestion but a profound challenge to the status quo. It demands a departure from symbolic gestures to substantive actions, mirroring past transformative shifts like the independence of the Bank of England.

As the debate on foreign policy intensifies, readers are encouraged to contribute to the discourse by submitting responses. This interactive engagement ensures a diverse range of perspectives, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved.

Ultimately, the article signals the urgency for a recalibration in the UK's foreign policy approach, with Labour positioned to lead the charge for a more robust, principled, and effective strategy in safeguarding global stability and security.

Next
The mother of a 6-year-old Muslim boy, who was fatally stabbed in what is believed to be a hate crime related to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas