Given the comprehensive case against NATO intervention in Syria, as made yesterday, the response from the both the British political establishment and the electorate has been appalling. The government has failed to condemn America’s actions, preferring to curry favour with the Trump administration in the hope of a good trade deal post-Brexit. The Liberal Democrats, who bravely opposed the intervention in Iraq, now rally behind the call to war, ignoring Trump’s anti-liberal nationalism, bellicose rhetoric, and support for Brexit. UKIP, which like Trump, previously had an isolationist foreign policy, remains dubiously silent.
The only prominent voice of sanity vis a vis Syria is Jeremy Corbyn. Now the ideology and leadership qualities of Corbyn leave much to be desired. Under his tenure, Labour has slumped in the polls, and is widely perceived to be irrelevant in the post-Brexit political order. During the referendum campaign, the Labour leadership’s contribution to the Remain cause was lacklustre, in which real conviction and zeal for the European cause was conspicuously absent. Corbyn fails to make a convincing case for his brand of democratic socialism, preferring to rally against ‘austerity’ without prescribing a credible alternative, adding to his perception as overly spendthrift and fiscally irresponsible. He has failed to see off the threat of Scottish nationalism- a key promise of his. Even on foreign policy, his closeness with Hamas, Hezbollah and Sinn Fein are worrying at best. His frequent appearances on Russian and Iranian state TV, where he fails to condemn the human rights abuses committed by those nations, betrays an anti-Western bias common amongst the socialist left. This gives needless credibility to his right-wing critics, who view him as unpatriotic and anti-British.
Corbyn can be relied upon to oppose any Western intervention, because his socialist ideology views such interventions as expression of post-colonial oppression, in which the former imperial powers seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the developing world. Now that isn’t necessarily always the case: the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were successful in preventing more killings, and in the case of Rwanda, genocide occurred due to lack of intervention. Nor is the Marxist paradigm of post-colonialism entirely accurate in the case of Syria: it would be disingenuous to suggest that NATO members don’t care about the immorality of Assad’s crimes, and are only proposing intervention to increase their influence in the region. Nevertheless, Corbyn’s anti-war views ought to be commended in his instance, even if they aren’t entirely for the right reasons. This is partly because they run contrary to public opinion, which is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, even if regime change is still opposed by a majority. One of the reasons why Corbyn was elected Labour leader was because he was viewed as a man of principle, even if his principles weren’t always agreeable. This was juxtaposed to his opponents: Kendall, Cooper and Burnham all seemed to be spewing out politically correct inoffensiveness, talking a good talk on making Labour electable and helping the poor, without ever challenging popular misconceptions or outlining a programme of real change. For many on the Left, Trump’s bombing on Syria has reminded them why they supported Corbyn, even if they have grown more sceptical of him over time.
Like the British public, the American public is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, without supporting regime change. What distinguishes America from Britain is that the anti-war movement has energised the Democratic Party against Trump, whereas the British left remain hopelessly divided. Comedians, civil rights activists, journalists, Democratic politicians and ordinary protestors have all eloquently spoken out against Trump’s foreign policy. They do not necessarily share Corbyn’s aversion to all Western interventions, but rightly regard Trump’s actions as short-sighted and likely to lead to more violence in the long term. The American Left will reap the rewards of this opposition. When it becomes apparent to a majority of Americans that Assad is no closer to being ousted from power, the Democrats will be swept into office. Having said that, they can only fully capitalise on anti-war sentiment if they repeat the 2008 primary, selecting an anti-war candidate. Nominating someone with similar foreign policies to Hillary Clinton would be a tactical error.
The response from the American left is not the only reason to be more optimistic about anti-war opposition in America than in Britain. As president, Trump has far more control over foreign than domestic affairs. Therefore, foreign policies ought to have greater bearing on Americans’ view of him than the British people’s view of Theresa May. The British people are also distracted by Brexit, which involves not only the complicated Article 50 process, but an economy which has already worsened (primarily in the form of inflation, the devaluation of the pound, and many major banks’ deciding to move jobs overseas) and will probably continue to do so. Despite Trump, the outlook for the American economy is more bullish, which means foreign policy will play a greater role in the public debate. If the anti-war movement is to succeed in Britain, it must put its differences aside and unite under Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. This won’t guarantee electorate success, or even make it much more likely. But it will provide a coherent narrative, forcing the interventionists to defend themselves more vigourously. It also makes the nomination of another Syrian non-interventionist more likely once Corbyn resigns, following Labour’s all but inevitable defeat in 2020.