UK
CND calls for new direction as defence secretary resigns amid military spending row
By the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Following the resignation of John Healey as Defence Secretary, CND is calling for the government to take a new direction – away from the disastrous war drive and nuclear expansion which is making the world more dangerous, and towards action to tackle the urgent security threats we face – from the looming global recession and climate breakdown.
Healey’s resignation comes amid arguments between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury over the long-awaited Defence Investment Plan – a multi-billion hike to military spending that would be funded by deep cuts to public services, including new hospital building programmes, transport and climate action.
Healey and top military officials have been calling for a minimum hike of £18 billion over the next four years, with the MoD claiming it had a £28 billion shortfall in its current spending plans. Amongst the weapons programmes they want to fund are 12 nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets from the US, that launch US nuclear bombs.
Healey’s resignation letter makes clear he thinks increasing military spending will keep us safe. But the government’s war drive has only contributed to and prolonged the devastating conflict in Ukraine. Britain’s 17% increase in nuclear spending is adding to global nuclear dangers, not reducing them.
Healey argues that Britain’s military is under-funded. Yet according to analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, British military spending in real terms is now actually higher than during the Cold War. Figures published this week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, show Britain’s military spending has already increased by 32% since 2016.
One of the key arguments used by the Healey to justify attempts to turn Britain into a war economy is that it will kick start growth and create huge employment opportunities across the country. Yet the facts don’t bear this out. Areas where some of Britain’s largest nuclear weapons manufacturers have been based for decades, like Barrow-in-Furness and Devonport, remain amongst the most deprived in the country.
In fact, the military sector is amongst the least jobs-rich economic sectors when compared to other areas of spending like healthcare and transport. Redirecting military spending into these areas will be far more effective in supporting economic growth and creating jobs.But it is also totally reckless to raid the budgets of public services that are vital to protect the population from the looming global recession caused by the illegal war on Iran. This would only make the country more insecure, not less.
The deadlock over the Defence Investment Plan and Healey’s resignation provides the government with an opportunity to change course and tackle the real security issues that we face: investing in climate action, healthcare, education, and food security. These are all critical to the long-term security not just of this country but globally.
- You can follow Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X and TikTok.
- This article was originally published by the CND on 11 June.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
Any Future Labour Leadership Needs to Forge an Independent Foreign Policy – Apsana Begum MP
Amplifying socialist voices, supporting frontline struggles, building international solidarity.
By Apsana Begum MP
There has been much debate in the Labour Party over a recent essay written by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, outlining his suggestions for Labour government policy.
Conveniently for him, his policy suggestions align closely with those of the biggest donors to his Foundation.
One argument has slipped under the radar of the discussion. This is the one in which Blair argues that the UK must strongly support the decisions of the United States even where they are unpopular – in this case, pushing for UK assistance in the war on Iran.
It is my view and the view of so many of my constituents that is a moral failure that the Labour Party continues to not heed the lessons of the 2003 Iraq war. Blair’s war cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians their lives, destabilised the region with disastrous consequences, and, also, eroded trust in British politics for a generation.
In addition, the British public holds an increasingly negative view of the sycophancy towards the United States. They find Donald Trump particularly objectionable and see little to be gained from the relationship.
This does not of course negate the objective reality that the UK has close defence and security ties with the United States.
It is the case, however, that the British public struggle to understand why these ties should be so strong with a state and government that behaves in an increasingly aggressive, illegal, and unilateral way – from Iran to Venezuela, Cuba and elsewhere.
This contradiction – between the close state ties and the increasing public hostility to the US – has posed serious problems for this Labour Government.
Firstly, it was the strategy of appeasing Trump that led to the catastrophic and immoral decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador.
Like many, I believe that this strategy was a gamble by design, and that the Prime Minister may have thought that the high risks associated with Mandelson would pay off with key wins on trade talks or other important issues. It failed.
Secondly, this appeasement strategy also goes some way to explaining why the Labour government under Keir Starmer has been so poor on Palestine. Its foreign policies have been crafted to carefully avoid rebukes from the US. On sanctions, recognition, and even the very partial arms exports restrictions, every small measure put in place by this government has been met with fury by the US Executive.
Indeed, disclosures made in the High Court last year show that Ministers worried that a total suspension on arms sales would “undermine US confidence in the UK… and set back relations.”
But that does not give Labour an excuse not to meet the urgent moral and political demands arising from the genocide in Palestine. The government’s acceptance of what the US told them to do, or not to do, on arms sales has led to political catastrophe for the Labour Party. According to polling last month, for the largest share of 2024 Labour voters, allowing arms exports is the single worst thing that the government has done. Far more importantly, it has cost lives in Palestine.
With a membership and voter base which is strongly supportive of greater action in Gaza and the West Bank, it should be clear that any leadership hopeful will need to carefully consider how the UK can forge a foreign policy independent of the United States.
The Labour Party is yet to acknowledge with how devastatingly bad its foreign policy has been in relation to Palestine. For many of our constituents appalled by the genocide, the fatal words of Keir Starmer – that Israel had the right to cut off food, water, and electricity to Gaza – cannot be forgotten. But neither will the inaction that has followed those infamous words. Indeed, I wonder if it will ever be forgiven.
- Apsana Begum is the MP for Poplar and Limehouse and a regular contributor to Labour Outlook. You can follow Apsana on Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram and Tik Tok.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
No comments:
Post a Comment