Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Military?

1516047029_98c5ceae2d_z

Since the election of the new leader of the opposition, Corbyn has been subject to headlines that could make army generals think they might be out of a job. But is Corbyn as much of a pacifist as the media say?

The biggest anti-war aspects of Corbyn’s policies come from his stance on NATO and the nuclear submarine programme, Trident. In an article for the Morning Star, he compared NATO to the eastern expansion seen with the Soviet/Communist Warsaw Pact, led by Russia, but in reverse stating that Russia’s intervention in Ukraine was “not provoked”. This implies the leader sees the alliance as outdated and unhelpful. He also wrote about it on his website, implying that British military spending and sovereignty is impeded by this alliance. Although this doesn’t make him anti-military, and exit from NATO could lead to far less British military intervention is he were to become leader.

Corbyn has been quoted as saying NATO is "outdated"
Corbyn has been quoted as saying NATO is “outdated”

 

Corbyn is strongly anti-Trident and opposes the renewal of the Trident nuclear programme. Although this doesn’t make him anti-military, critics have argued that a sans-nuclear UK would weaken it as a military force globally. This could indicate a shift in military power, allowing the UK to take less of a leading role in conflicts. Under a Corbyn government, a US-UK type military coalition may lessen as Britain would become less of a major military player without its nuclear deterrent.

Looking away for a moment from policy, Corbyn won the Gandhi International Peace award for for his “consistent efforts over a 30 year Parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and non‐violence.”.

More recently, Corbyn has been strongly opposed to the proposal to start British air strikes in Syria. Opting to promote diplomacy and peaceful internvetion, this is a clear case study of what military action could look like under corbyn. Although he does not plan to make his peaceful attitude a Labour policy, made clear by giving his MPs a free vote on the issue, a Corbyn Britain would certainly look like a more peaceful one.

Finally, Corbyn himself had this to say about his stance on military intervention:

“I have always campaigned against neo-colonial wars that are fought for resources on the pretence of fighting for human rights. We need an understanding of our past and our role in the making of the conflicts today, whether it be the Sykes-Picot Agreement or our interventions in the Middle East post 9/11.

I argue for a different type of foreign policy based on political and not military solutions; on genuine internationalism that recognises that all human life is precious, no matter what nationality; and solidarity with the oppressed across the globe from the subjugated Palestinians to the displaced Chagos Islanders.”

Photos by: U.S Army Europe Images,Loz Pylock

Refugees And ISIS, Explained

9622924306_07c1066707_z

After the recent Paris attacks, many British and international papers have linked the attacks to the refugee crisis, claiming that terrorists are travelling to western Europe by posing as refugees. But is this true? Where did this idea come from and how will it effect the migrant crisis?

The fact that seems to contradict these headlines is that some of the attackers in Paris were French. Much like the Lee Rigby attack in London and the Boston Marathon Bombing,  some of the attackers weren’t actually from Iraq or Syria, where ISIS is based. However, the attackers M al-Mahmod*, Bilal Hadfi and Ahmad al-Mohammad are thought to have come to Europe with refugees.

_86852495_paris_attack_teams_624_v2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a little tenuous though. After Ahman al-Mohammad detonated his suicide vest outside of the Stade de France, a Syrian passport was found, which was thought to be his. However authorities later said this was a fake passport.

Records from the border control of Leros, a Greek island that many refugees pass through, suggested Ahman al-Mohammad arrived there on the 3rd October and was fingerprinted and photographed. Leros authorities were reported as saying they simply do not have the resources to screen all the migrants effectively  or even check whether passports are genuine. So this lends to the theory that al-Mohammad came to Europe as a refugee. The attacker M al-Mahmod is suspected of travelling with him.

Greece Flag
One of the attackers travelled through Greece to get to France

 

Bilal Hadfi had gone to fight in Syria alongside IS, but the Belgian government were not aware he returned. This again could mean he travelled to Europe similarly to Admad al-Mohammad. However he may he returned in a different way.

Samy Amimour was one of the suicide bombers who blew himself up at the Batclan. In 2014, French newspaper Le Monde published an account of a father who travelled to Syria to convince his son to leave IS and return to France. Fake names were used in the original article, but it has been updated to reveal that the son in question was Amimour.

So does this mean that there is a link between refugees and terrorists? Should we be cautious of refugees?

The short answer is no. Over one million people have been displaced by the situation in Syria and most refugees wish to escape IS and terrorism.

Making it harder for refugees to emigrate into Europe may cause some to join ISIS as they would have to return to Syria and be left with no choice.

A stricter system could solve the issue, as the official who allowed Ahman al-Momhammad into Greece said they don’t have the roscources to throughly check all migrants.

Canada has said it will not take single, male refugees as a precaution. Poland has said they will not take any refugees. Republicans in America are calling for the U.S to stop taking in refugees.

Whether their actions are justified is questionable, either way the attacks have changed the face refugee crisis significantly.

Photos by: HonestReporting, Leonora Enking

*The attackers real name has not been released by authorities. The name comes from the BBC.

Why David Cameron Cautious About Action In Syria

4592977889_79dd9e8a0a_z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the aftermath of the Paris Attacks, President Hollande declared that it was an “act of war”. However David Cameron is cautious about getting the House Of Commons to vote on whether act against ISIS in the form of air strikes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JkV0h8P_h0

Whereas France have stepped up their attacks on the terrorist group along with the U.S, Britain still remains a minor player in the attacks.

Despite having a long history with wars in the Middle East alongside the U.S, the two nations have been more divided with this issue.

The key reason David Cameron isn’t trying to get air strikes approved by the commons yet is because of the previous failed attempts.

Two years ago, Cameron tried to get approval through the commons to launch air strikes aimed at destabilising the power of the leader of Syria, Bashar-al-Assad. Due to a public outcry and reminders of poor military intervention in the past, the air strikes proposals were defeated.

However the UK has been launching airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq for the last two years, which was approved by parliament.

As Russia’s involvement in Syria has been linked to the downing of a Russian plane in Egypt, and French airstrikes have been linked to the attack in Paris, it may still be sometime until Britain gets involved in Syria rather than just Iraq.

Syria is more controversial and dangerous to bomb, as there are a lot of different groups fighting in the region, and mistakes could lead to even more success for ISIS as bitter civilians turn to terrorism.

This was something seen in Yemen a few years ago, when US airstrikes increased the Al-Qaeda presence in Yemen due to poorly targeted air strikes.

Cameron said he would not proposed legislation until he was sure he wold have a majority of MPs who support him. But with one defeat already, it may be a while until Cameron risks another one.

Photos by Eva Blue videos by AP, CNN and The Young Turks

The Big Names In The Republican Presidential Race

21294359288_338721f4ce_z

The amount of people running for the Republican makes the debate stage look more like a marathon line-up, but who are the possible winners and where do they come from?

1. Donald Trump –  26.8% voted him best in the polls

 5440995682_c53756ae95_z

The outspoken Businessman is actually leading the polls, even beating dynastic former governor Jeb Bush in popularity.

2.Ben Carson – 22%

18352440262_7698d91446_z

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dark horse of the contest,  the former neurosurgeon still holds second place, despite some controversial claims about the recent Oregon school shooting.

3. Mark Rubio – 9%

379px-Marco_Rubio,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The senator in Florida is sneaking up to become the new favourite for the candidacy.

4. Jeb Bush – 7%

452px-Governor_of_Florida_Jeb_Bush_at_Southern_Republican_Leadership_Conference_May_2015_by_Michael_Vadon_16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeb yes-that-Bush was seen as a possible winner at the start. It’s almost as if having a extremely controversial brother harms your chances of becoming president!

5. Ted Cruz – 7.2 %

384px-Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The senator for Texas is the more right-wing choice for leader

6. Carly Fiorina – 5.8%

521px-Carly_fiorina_speaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former head of Hewllet-Packard, Republicans hope she can manage the country better than her company.

7. Mike Huckabee – 3.8%

386px-Mike_Huckabee_by_Gage_Skidmore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former governor of Arkansas. Might overtake some politicians as Fiorina loses momentum

8. Rand Paul – 3.4%

379px-Rand_Paul,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress_alternate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator from Kentucky and son of former republican congressman Ron Paul.

9. John Kasich – 2.6%

343px-Governor_John_Kasich

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governor of Ohio, was a businessman in the 1990’s.

10.Chris Christie – 2.4%

344px-Chris_Christie_April_2015_(cropped)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governor of New Jersey, known mostly for the Fort Lee lane closure unfortunately.

Bonus round: Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham all have under 1% of the vote therefore don’t debate alongside the other nominees.

Photots by Gage Skidmore, Iprimages, US Government, Michael Vadon, Gage Skidmore (Huckabee image), Michael Vadon (Fiorina image), Donkey Hotey.

 

Poll numbers come from official surveys of random samples of the American public conducted by official bodies.

Why Canada’s Recent Election Is Such A Big Deal

10063668884_1cd046ae3b_h

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canada’s recent election was won by Justin Trudeau who is the leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Like many people, you’re probably wondering why a Canadian election is such a big deal. Well the centre-left party jumped from only 36 seats in 2011 to 184 seats in 2015. In real terms, that would be the equivalent to the Liberal Democrats in the UK winning an election outright.

_86224007_canada_elections_2011_2015_v2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it’s not just that which is the cause for this media coverage. It’s policy. The previous ruling party, The Conservative Party of Canada share more than a name with their UK counterparts. Being a low-tax, low-welfare led party, many parallels can be drawn with the British Conservative party. This makes the results even more astounding as the policies championed by Trudeau are the antithesis of the ideology held by the Conservatives:

  • Cut income taxes for middle-class Canadians while increasing them for the wealthy
  • Run deficits for three years to pay for infrastructure spending
  • Do more to address environmental concerns over the controversial Keystone oil pipeline
  • Take in more Syrian refugees, and pull out of bombing raids against Islamic State while bolstering training for Iraqi forces
  •  Legalise marijuana

For Justins Tredueas party to not only win, but win by quite a large amount speaks volumes on the stances Canadians take on social and political issues. But let’s be honest, why does this matter to the rest of the world?

Firstly, a large western country choosing to opt out of operations in Syria could affect other countires foreign policy. Similarly to French opposition to the invasion of Iraq, this policy could be said to have a impact on how the conflict will be viewed retrospectively. Also, Canada taking a humanitarian stance on the refugee crisis (despite the fact it doesn’t directly affect them) could set a precedent on how other countries react to the crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=wD5FAzvltpI

 

Successfully legalising marijuana could have a knock on effect on America and the UK as the Liberal Democrats are already pushing for decriminalisation, using Colorado and Washington (where cannabis has been fully legalised) as examples of how it can be successful.

Successfully Legalising Cannabis Could Change Drug Policy Around The World
Successfully Legalising Cannabis Could Change Drug Policy Around The World

 

Lastly, the left-leaning ethos of the party could serve as an example to other western nations of how higher taxes and increased spending can benefit an economy more so than austerity. This is particulary significant with the rise of prominent left-wing politicians Bernie Sanders of America and Jeremy Corbyn of the UK. Looking at Canada as a case study could prove to be hugely influential to the West and the UK.

Photos by BBC, Chuck Grimmet and Joseph Morris