Perhaps some of you have heard about the Great Tony Benn — a Labour Party politician who inherited a life peerage, gave it up, and stood up for the working masses, despite being of noble blood himself.
Idolized by many, the late Tony Benn was renowned for being staunchly anti-war, even being President of the Stop the War Coalition from 2001 until his death in March 2014. Tony, characterized by many as British Labour’s lost leader, remained consistent throughout his political career in opposing wars.
In 1998, in a speech at the House of Commons, he warned against bombing Iraq, recounting past experiences from World War II and was quoted as saying “…and every night I went down to the shelter in Themes’ House, every morning I saw Dockland burning, five hundred people were killed in Westminster one night by a landmine…it was terrifying. Aren’t Arabs terrified? Aren’t Iraqis terrified? Don’t Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die? Does bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live in a generation for which war is a computer game for our children and just an interesting little channel for news item.”
Benn’s efforts to stop the government from bombing Iraq were to no avail at the time. However, I believe that later in time he was proven right. The disastrous war in Iraq saw to that, and his words proved to be predictions throughout later years. In 2015, when Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour Leader, crushing all opponents in the Labour Leadership election, the phrase “Tony Benn would be proud” was uttered throughout Britain. Corbyn and Benn, who formed part of British Labour’s left wing parliamentary wing, were faithful allies and it seemed that Labour had finally listened to Tony Benn’s principles and ideas when electing one of his closest colleagues and friends to the top post.
Something that may have gone unnoticed by the general public happened that day. When naming his Shadow Cabinet, Corbyn announced that the Shadow Foreign Secretary post was to be held by Hilary Benn — Tony’s son. Perhaps some saw Hilary as an extension of his father, others who knew Hilary and had worked with him knew that his name wouldn’t matter in the end — as the latter Benn was already renowned within working groups as being more right wing and moderate than his father.
Proof of this came yesterday, when Hilary delivered a speech that drew applause from most members of the House who voted to bomb Syria. The most intriguing and convincing part of Hilary’s speech came when he mentioned the number of people killed by ISIS, or Daesh as most politicans are now calling them — a name Daesh hate to be called by. “We know they have killed thirty British tourists in Tunisia, two hundred and twenty-four Russian holiday makers on a plane, a hundred and seventy-eight people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc, a hundred and thirty people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh in trying to justify their bloody slaughter called them apostates engaged in prostitution and vice. If it had happened here, they could have been our children, and we know they are plotting more attacks.”
In reading, watching and hearing the speeches quoted above at the Commons — I’d have to say that Hilary has inherited the gift of oration form his father. They differ ideologically, yet both Tony and Hilary proved to be outstanding orators. With regard to substance, however, it must be mentioned that I favour Tony — and most left wingers would agree.
Hilary Benn was right on his facts and numbers — but was the action contemplated, an action he voted in favour of, the right remedy to solve the ever-increasing terrorist threat? Will mercilessly injuring and killing thousands of innocent civilians be justified during the course of time just as a result of terrorist attacks, done by an organisation holding the same civilians hostage to their system of remorseless ideals? No, no and no — or, perhaps Hilary hadn’t thought of the fact that bombing Daesh will result in further loss of life! Perhaps he did — and convinced himself that British security is much more important than the lives of thousands of Syrian and Iraqi peers which I suspect will be lost throughout the soon to start bombing campaign. Even if he did convince himself on the latter point, he is not quite right as wars have increasingly resulted in more terrorist activity as past experiences have shown!
This will not be solved by bombing; everything will be worsened.
Western countries should be supportive in the fight against ISIS, but not leading! The Kurds who have proved to be increasingly effective in fighting the terrorists (even with lack of equipment), should be armed. Saudi Arabia which has some nine hundred fighter jets should play a part in the war — focusing on terrorizing terrorists rather than terrorizing human rights activists. Last but not least, – ISIS should be defunded. Western countries, and also NATO should investigate Russian President Putin’s claim that oil from fields controlled by ISIS is being smuggled to Turkey resulting in continuous revenue for the group, and just about enough resources to continue occupying the territory they currently occupy both in Syria and Iraq.
It must be granted that the situation is as complicated as it gets. Bombing Syria (and Iraq) may at first glance look like the easy way out. However, if the course of action to be taken is simply bombing the perpetrators, then one must expect hordes of unintentional deaths and collateral damage. This, in turn, will result in some of the aggrieved victims being radicalized and will act as an indirect fuel that ISIS desperately needs, thus ensuring a continuation of their onslaught.