The new Prime Minister must abandon decades of automatic support for US foreign policy, which makes us all less safe
by Diane Abbott
When the economy is stagnating and living standards are under pressure, it is inevitable that a new prime minister will be judged primarily on their domestic agenda. But foreign policy cannot be pushed onto the backburner. There is simply too much at stake, both in terms of domestic spending priorities and in terms of our security and well-being.
This is because we are at a crucial time in terms of war and peace. We are engaged in trying to stop multiple wars, not just one war.
We have had an invasion and a coup in Venezuela and the same is threatened against Cuba. Nigeria has been bombed, along with Yemen. A coup in Syria installed an ally of radical jihadists. There is an ongoing genocide in Gaza, a rampage against Palestinians in the West Bank and a full-scale invasion of Lebanon.
There is a military build-up against China, especially through Aukus, the security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US. And of course, there is the war and blockade of Iran, which is affecting both food and energy supplies globally.
Finally, there is the prolonged war in Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since WWII, much bigger even than the Nato campaign against the former Yugoslavia.
All of these military campaigns have one thing in common. The US is central to them all and initiated most of them.
There has been lots of debate about the meaning of US strategy in recently published documents. Some have argued that they mean the US is confining itself to the Americas. Others believe that it is limiting its reach to the western hemisphere.
None of that is true. Any close reading of those documents tells us otherwise. More importantly, any objective assessment of US actions makes it clear: this is a plan for the reassertion of US primacy across the globe.
It is America first and last. It is Make America Great Again (Maga) by making others worse, including allies. It is a plan for the reassertion of US global domination. Its advocates in Washington are frequently explicit about that, exactly in line with the strategy documents. Their statements are aligned with their actions. We should believe them.
In the 1950s, the US accounted for around 40 per cent of world GDP. Today, it is about 17 per cent of world GDP. In the lifetime since the US has lost out to the global South in general and China in particular. It has lost its economic dominance.
The US is now attempting to reassert its former economic dominance primarily through a combination of tariffs, sanctions and military methods. It has three enormous advantages in that project.
The first is the overwhelming dominance of the US military. The US spends vast sums on the military, roughly as much as the next nine countries combined. It has done so for decades. It is the only country that can stop other countries from trading with the entire the world, as it has done with its siege of Cuba.
The second US advantage is in the global role of the US dollar. US policy-makers themselves call it their “inordinate privilege.” It is the currency of global commodities. When the US needs more of them, it can simply print dollars. The rest of the world must earn them through trade.
The third key advantage is the US’s allies. There is the belligerent ferocity of its Israeli ally, which does not baulk at outright genocide.
On the other hand, there is the complete spinelessness of its other allies, such as those in the Gulf, in Europe, Japan, Britain and Australia, who watch their economies destroyed, their energy supplies blown up and their societies subordinated. Their only response to Trump’s demands for protection money is the rush to pay up.
A completely supine posture towards Trump characterised Keir Starmer’s foreign policy. The reason there is such a hue and cry about military spending now is not because Russian forces are in Ukraine; that happened well over four years ago. No, the reason for the outlandish claims about an imminent Russian invasion is simply because Trump demanded more military spending from Nato members. A reluctant population is being brow-beaten into financing Trump’s war drive.
Even when Trump’s speeches on the campaign trail threatened and insulted others’ military spending, the Nato leaders ignored him, hoping he would lose. Now, they are all born-again warmongers.
Under Starmer, Britain led the pack in servility. It has aided the genocide in Gaza, providing overflights, intelligence and diplomatic cover. It has bombed Yemen. It is the most aggressive advocate of the war in Ukraine and baulks at any prospect of peace talks.
On Iran there is an outright lie that Britain kept out of the war. British bases have been used by US heavy bombers to pound Iran. Even in the US, members of the Congressional Intelligence Committee say that Iran never posed a risk or threatened war. Yet, on this, Burnham has outdone Starmer by declaring his support for US bombing. This makes us all less safe.
Yet, despite all these US advantages and the obsequiousness of its allies, not everything is going to plan. The US lost the first few rounds of the trade war with China. It seems wary of militarily attacking Cuba. It is unclear what, if anything, is being achieved in Iran. The war in Ukraine drags on. Only the appalling genocide stands as a monument to their complete ruthlessness.
It seems clear that we are in for a prolonged fight. The US is not going to give up and go home. Its status as the sole superpower is at stake. This has implications for the whole world, including our new Prime Minister.
For at least 70 years British prime ministers have been determined to stick like a limpet to US policy (the honourable exception was Harold Wilson refusing to wage war against Vietnam). It has not served us well. It has helped to accelerate our relative economic decline. The arms industry and finance are not stable pillars of a modern, thriving economy.
There is also the enormous bill to be paid in trying to meet Trump’s demands on military spending. It can only be met by severe cuts to useful public spending or increased borrowing, or both.
None of this is making us any safer. On the contrary. Russia is a major military power, but Nato is engaged in a war which is now striking deep into Russian territory, provoking widespread calls for retaliation against Nato countries.
The new British PM could copy the Spanish PM, refusing to help fund Trump’s war drive, refusing to allow US flights to bomb Iran, and imposing a ban on arms sales to Israel. We would be safer and better off.
Source:
Comments
Post a Comment