Labour’s Corbyn faces mutiny threat from army
By Arun Srivastava
Emergence of leftist Jeremy Corbyn on the political scenario of Britain has not only unnerved the social elites, rich and conservative Britons, but it has also invited the ire of the armed forces. The serving army general warned that Corbyn could face a “mutiny” from the military if he became the prime minister. Though the Ministry of Defence has condemned the incident the remark has come as rude shock for the people of Britain as how could a general of a democratic country use this language? A Ministry of Defence source said it was unacceptable for a serving officer to make political comments about a potential “future government”.
The unnamed army commander said any attempt by Corbyn to take Britain out of NATO, scrap Trident or cut the size of Britain’s forces would be fought by means “fair or foul”. The general added that a Labour victory under Corbyn in 2020 would result in “mass resignations at all levels” and there would be the “very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny”. While Labour refused to comment on the views of what it described as an “anonymous general”, in private leaders described the remarks as “pretty outrageous”. It is beyond comprehension how a serving officer could threaten a coup against an elected government?
Local newspapers quoted right-wing Tory MP Daniel Hannan describing the general as an “idiot”. “We’re not Bolivia for God’s sake,” he said. The general who served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, claimed that the armed forces would take “direct action” to prevent a Corbyn government from downgrading it and went on to say that his victory had been greeted with “wholesale dismay” even among Labour-supporting soldiers. “There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny,” the general said.
He also said; “Sentiments are running high. The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.”
Interestingly some Corbyn detractors have not been opposed to this view of the general though they describe it unwise. They hold that it did reflect broader concern among service chiefs about the direction Corbyn might take the Labour Party. It does show the level of concern in the armed forces, which in itself is alarming.
The MoD sources hold, “It would be fair to say that these remarks are not helpful. No one thinks that it is a good idea for a senior serving officer to undermine a potential future government.” Surprisingly the Ministry of Defence ruled out an inquiry on the grounds that it would be almost impossible to identify the culprit. There are still around 100 serving generals in the army.
Mr Corbyn also faces opposition from his own front bench over his positions on defence, particularly on whether to back air strikes against Isis positions in Syria. Lord Falconer, the shadow Justice Secretary, said he would be prepared to back a bombing campaign as long as it had proper military and legal justification.
Significantly for Labour to advocate pulling Britain out of NATO in the name of peace is also not enough endorsement inside the Labour party. It is widely held that NATO is Europe’s peace framework: the military and diplomatic hardwiring that stops old blood lands in Central and Eastern Europe from fearing new wars. It is argued that NATO is not a capitalist vampire, but the architecture that underwrites the stability of the EU.
People nurse that Nato works because people believe in it as a guarantee from the strong militaries – above all the US, UK and France – to keep the region stable. Central Europeans passionately believe Nato is responsible for maintaining peace in the Balkans, that it keeps Greece and Turkey from each other’s throats, that it stops old rivals such Hungary, Romania and Slovakia from vendettas over one another’s territory. Above all, NATO keeps the Baltic states safe from Vladimir Putin’s “interventions”.
There is general feeling that taking the UK out of NATO would be disastrous. It is alleged that Corbyn’s thinking on NATO sounds like the views of a man who has spent too much time watching and appearing on Russia Today.
Three years back while participating at the Hiroshima remembrance parade Jeremy Corbyn had wished that Britain should abolish its Army in a “wonderful” move to help peace. He had observed then that Britain and other countries should follow the lead of Caribbean outpost Costa Rica and scrap their Armed Forces. Following this Tories said the radical view proved why the new Labour leader was a threat to the nation’s very security. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson broke ranks with his new boss to defend Britain’s nuclear deterrent and membership of NATO.
After this the former British army officer, Colonel Bob Stewart had slammed Jeremy Corbyn’s support for the IRA; “people who have been instrumental in the deaths of so many of my soldiers when I was in the army”. On that occasion Corbyn had said it would be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces favoured reduction of the army strength. A fortnight back Corbyn admitted he “couldn’t think” of a situation in which he would deploy British troops. In a televised Labour leadership debate he said Britain was “quite a small country” and questioned whether it could afford a “global reach”.
Nevertheless on October 20, hopefully hundreds of thousands of people will be marching through the streets of London, protesting against libraries being closed, hospitals being cut back, schools being cut back, young people being denied opportunities, cuts in social services. (IPA Service)