Labour must be the party of peace, and not of war

In a political climate in which a war with Iran is seeming to be more likely than has been believed in decades, there is a growing consensus from all sections of the party that Labour must act as firm advocates for opposition to a war. In recent weeks tensions between Britain and the Islamic Republic have reached an all-time high, and the Conservative-led government are taking a tough line with an aim to build an international repudiation of the country. Sources indicate that the Israeli government prefers the option of engagement with Iran, and the US and UK have given tacit support to this idea if international approval can be achieved. Labour must take the government head on, and posit the case that war with Iran would have unequivocally disastrous consequences for Britain and the Middle East.

On the 14th November, my Labour club, Bristol Labour Students, passed a motion condemning plans for a future war with Iran, calling instead for Labour to “push for rapprochement and engagement in creating a dialogue for peace and disarmament” and urged other university Labour clubs to do the same. This was followed last week by a statement from SOAS Labour Club echoing Bristol’s concerns and condemning the mission-creep to war, while on Saturday an article in the Financial Times by David Miliband cautioned against “sleepwalking into a war with Iran“. Miliband made clear that “diplomacy must take the lead in in preventing a major war” while at the same time making clear “the price of a nuclear-armed Iran would be very high”. It is Labour’s task to provide an alternative explanation of how best to resolve the situation with Iran. Labour has the chance to put forward a progressive international agenda, break with its recent past on foreign policy, and set out its stall as the party of peace, and not of war.

Labour must first turn the discourse about disarming Iran’s nuclear programme into a broader discussion about nuclear disarmament. Internationally this would mean Labour condemning plans for Iranian nuclear armament, simultaneous to taking a much more firm line on countries already in possession of illegal weapons programmes. Israel, one of the loudest voices in calling for a war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, is alleged to possess 200 nuclear bombs of its own, and Labour must end the double-standards on nuclear armament in the Middle East. Domestically Labour has to be radical in its approach to defence policy, making the link between renewing our own nuclear deterrence programme and the cuts. Scrapping Trident could save £100 billion for SureStart Centres, hospitals and schools, and would allow Britain to lead the international debate on global disarmament. No longer is the issue of nuclear disarmament relegated to the far left of the party or deemed political insanity, it is an issue of global importance and a strong bargaining chip for rapprochement with countries which feel the UK’s foreign policy is completely devoid of ethics.

Similarly, Labour should challenge the orthodoxies over the state subsidies of arms companies. Rather than the government awarding £900 million government subsidies per year to arms companies, including one company which produced the tear gas used on protesters at Tahrir Square, Labour must argue that schemes such as the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA), costing only £560 million a year, deserve that money instead. By putting forward the case that investment in education and health instead of war provides a truly sustainable future, Labour can dramatically alter the current narrative set by the Conservative-led government that the public sector must pay for this crisis.

Not only must Labour link its defence policy to the cuts, Labour has an opportunity to break with its recent foreign policy legacy it gained in office which left the party looking deeply tarnished and bruised. While some in the Labour Party believe that the Libyan intervention has rescued humanitarian intervention from the ghost of Iraq, Labour has to acknowledge that it has learnt from the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan and take decisive action in order to win back the public’s trust on foreign affairs. 74% of the British public want the war in Afghanistan to end either “soon” or “immediately”, and this is not a statistic Labour can afford to ignore. A bold policy by Labour on Afghanistan, calling for total withdrawal in the next six months, would be heralded by the public as a courageous admission of the futility of war and a genuine commitment to peace from a party once accused of being “blood-thirsty”. The war in Afghanistan is currently costing £12 million a day, which is the same cost as employing 100,000 nurses or 150,000 care workers. Linking the war in Afghanistan to the defence of the NHS would put Labour back on the side of the public while at the same time taking a principled stand on foreign policy.

Labour has the opportunity in opposition to rewrite the handbook on how Britain does foreign policy, and it can begin by attacking the government’s plans for a war in Iran. By speaking up as the party of peace, Labour can finally claim to have realised Robin Cook’s intention for the party to embrace a truly ethical foreign policy.