In a statement that would have shocked absolutely nobody, Jeremy Corbyn announced he was against US and British attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen. Of course, Corbyn is against all conflict in the same way he was always against all forms of racism when he was leader of the Labour Party. Yet again, he is the touchstone for hypocrisy. The man who was happy to be paid by Iranian TV and suggested asking the Russians if they poisoned a man on British soil can always be relied on to provide a snapshot into the adolescent tendencies of his fellow travellers. What is significant about this is if his view of such dilemmas becomes the default position for an ever broader and deeper part of our society.
The response to strikes on the Houthis suggest a growing reluctance to assess difficult choices with reason or balance. If a militia backed by Iran repeatedly attacks international shipping – after warnings to desist – then the need to act overwhelms the wish to avoid conflict. The trite conflating of this with the Iraq War (which was illegal and foolhardy) is deliberately disingenuous.
National governments can’t always sit on their hands. However inconvenient, however frightening, however risky (how could any military action be anything other than a calculated risk) – even a government that is unpopular, on its uppers and has demonstrably failed in so many areas during its time in office has to act in the national interest. That is the primary purpose of a government of any complexion. And the consequences of doing nothing are, on balance, far worse. If the trade routes through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal cannot be protected by Western allies then not only will the malign influence of Iran grow unchecked but the catastrophic economic effects of the disruption will affect the region even more acutely than the rest of the world. If Egypt’s economy is wrecked, it would be destabilised to such an extent that its internal meltdown would add a further chaos to the region. What this might bring to an already horrific situation in Gaza is almost unthinkable.
For some, the West is always the enemy
Of course, “not in my name” is trending on social media. So what exactly is in your name? Is international trade in your name? Is prosperity in your name? Are liberal values in your name? Or is the unstoppable ascendency of a fascist theocracy in your name?
Every sane person would react to the news of US and UK strikes in Yemen with anxiety. Everyone is fearful. That fear comes from the seriousness of the situation. That fear should tell you that there is tangible risk and danger. Fear should inform you that there is reason to act, not a reason to isolate or hide.
Nobody wants conflict, let alone a full-scale war – and the risks of this crisis growing are terrifying. Parliament should be recalled to review and debate the developing situation immediately. What is concerning is the assumption that action of any kind – even self-defence or in the defence of international ships in international waters – must automatically be wrong and therefore avoided. Before we condemn the West’s aggression, should we not consider the aggression that prompted the air strikes and, more profoundly, the aggressors who lie behind the Houthis themselves?
It's telling that the hard Left position is that this action is a disproportionate rogue attack by the US and UK, when they are backed by a host of international partners. For some, the West is always the enemy. This kind of dissent is a luxury enjoyed only in the political systems they despise. Let’s not kid ourselves, in the hearts of such people an RAF Typhoon is an extension of “Zionist” aggression. “Not in my name” is an emotional response, not a rational one. In times of crisis, how would you rather decisions are made?
Most of us watching the news of these attacks are sick at the thought of an ever-widening war affecting ever larger numbers of innocent people. But there are also some who will condemn these strikes solely on the belief that the West is always on the wrong side of history and so any action it takes is always oppressive and unjust. Global trade is going to be affected either way, so doing nothing will not protect lives, our economy and certainly not global peace and stability. Those who agree with Jeremy Corbyn presumably do so as a matter of conscience – by never accepting the reasons behind a difficult decision (let alone taking one) they can sleep well in their beds at night. Good for them, but the rest of the world is going up in smoke and when they wake up it will not be any better for their caution.
