What on earth is Jeremy Corbyn on about? When asked at last night’s leadership debate in Solihull whether as prime minister he would aid a Nato ally under attack, he said no. “I would want to avoid us getting involved militarily. I want to achieve a world in which we don’t need to go to war.” The implication in this is that Corbyn wants to withdraw Britain from Nato. [...]
This is quite separate from the issue of nuclear weapons. When Corbyn was thought to oppose a British nuclear deterrent I cheered. A potential prime minister was joining most thoughtful defence analysts in deploring the retention of these archaic and unusable weapons. Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is obscene and wildly extravagant. Nuclear bombs are toys for boys and lolly for lobbyists. A sensible opposition should ask instead what sort of defence Britain really needs in the 21st century. [...]
Corbyn could sensibly have questioned Nato’s current purpose, not least its inexcusable support for America’s retaliatory war in Afghanistan. He could have warned against giving defensive assurances to non-Nato states along Russia’s borders. He could even have questioned the whole purpose of an alliance forged in the cold war, perhaps one that is no longer fit for purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment