Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

By Marion Birch - Medact

10 years after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre, reports of the sorrow of those that lost family and friends, are accompanied by an ongoing debate about the number of deaths caused. The officially recognised 2,976 deaths is not the final estimate. The directly attributable longer term health effects - particularly as a consequence of the dust created - are difficult to establish. However, in 2007, newly-diagnosed asthma post-9/11 was reported by 3.1% of workers or 12 times the normal rate among adults. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among rescue and recovery workers was 12.4% or four times that of the general USA population.^[1] The Zadroga Act which became law in January this year, authorised a further $4.7bn (£2.9bn) for monitoring, treatment and compensation for victims. The health consequences from this tragedy are far from over.

Every death should be documented and hold equal weight. There is no comfort for those that have lost loved ones in the United States, Afghanistan or Iraq in comparing 2,976 deaths with the hundreds of thousand of excess deaths from the ‘war on terror’ triggered by the attacks. At the same time this anniversary has to be a constant reminder that those in power used the event to launch the ‘war on terror’ on hundreds of thousands of individuals with no connection to 9/11. This was a massively disproportionate response, and the resulting number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan has since been played down.

The war on Afghanistan, launched in retaliation for 9/11, has no clear end in sight and the number of civilian deaths continues to rise. In the initial absence of clear and coordinated recording, the aggregation of various estimates of civilian deaths between 2001-2003 (direct and indirect) is estimated at 6,300 - 23,600.^[2][3][4][5] The United Nations Assistant Mission to Afghanistan established its Casualty Monitoring site in its present form in January 2007; in the month of May 2011 they recorded 368 conflict-related civilian deaths - the highest monthly figure recorded.^[6]

Tragically, the attacks on the World Trade Centre were also used to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite well-known doubts about any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In 2006 a survey carried out by a group of experts estimated excess deaths since the invasion of Iraq to be 654,965, and the survey results were published in The Lancet^[7]. This was the second survey of mortality in Iraq using the methodology of the random cluster sample survey – a methodology used in many other situations where the results were not challenged. Questions about implementation were also responded to in detail by the authors^[8]. However, the Iraq surveys were widely criticised and their findings dismissed by key figures in the both the UK and US governments. Later it was revealed that the UK government’s own scientific advisors had recommended at the time that the methodology was sound^[9].

In the United States, coverage of Afghan civilians deaths has tended to gave the impression that the main problem was that they undermined the ‘Allies war on Taliban’^[10] rather than being tragedies in their own right.

9/11 has also been used to question international law designed to prevent such disproportionate and indiscriminate responses to violent attacks. Drawn up by countries following the death and destruction of the Second World War, the ‘laws of war’ - or Geneva Conventions - establish rules to try to mitigate the human cost of conflict, particularly for civilians, injured combatants, and prisoners of war^[11]. The Conventions and their Additional Protocols also recognise the need to respect health workers, health facilities and medical supplies. Their key principles of proportionality (to likely military advantage) and discrimination (between combatants and civilians) should play a particularly important part in limiting death, sickness and injury. Yet 9/11 acted as a trigger to question them, which has persisted despite legal judgements,^[12][13] and ignoring them has resulted in many more tragic civilian casualties in the ‘war on terror’.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, health facilities were not protected. An estimated 12% of hospitals were damaged initially^[14] and 12 % were looted. Al-Rashad hospital – a 1200-bed long-stay psychiatric hospital – was one of the first to be looted and many of the patients fled. There are indications that this was not inevitable: the Ministries of Oil and of the Interior were protected by the occupying forces, and there are examples of successful local action to stop looting.^[15]

Medical neutrality continued to be violated even after there had been time to review what occurred during the initial invasion. During military operations in 2004, Fallujah General Hospital was occupied by Coalition forces^[16][17] and Iraqi soldiers beat up staff at Al Numan Hospital in Baghdad. During the attacks on Fallujah, ambulances came under fire and humanitarian convoys were denied access.^[18]

There were also dire consequences for those detained during these wars. The US Government denied the protection afforded to prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions on the grounds that those they detained were ‘unlawful or enemy combatants’, despite the opinion of international legal experts, Amnesty International and others.^[19] This created a climate of impunity which had severe and now well-known consequences for the health of these prisoners. Medical neutrality was also severely compromised. Psychologists originally working with the military on techniques which can be used to withstand torture, became members of the Behavioural Scientific Consultation Teams at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility designed specifically for those detained after 9/11. Their roles now included developing interrogation techniques based on an assessment of individual stressors,^[20] a clear breach of medical neutrality which has been criticised by both the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association.^[21]

Closer to home, the mental health of those fighting these wars has also been a growing concern, although a recent study in the UK indicated alcohol abuse to be more worrying than Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.^[22] A UK soldier suffering a major traumatic injury in Iraq or Afghanistan will have an "unexpected survival" rate of 26%, much higher than for a UK civilian.^[23] Survival for many will bring its own challenges in terms of disability and mental trauma; it has been estimated that the US has spent $31.3 billion since 2001 in providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.^[24]

9/11 was used to push the concept of the “new wars” and to suggest that this was a totally new situation in which, by implication, the old rules did not apply. But this ignored numerous recent conflicts that had many of the characteristics of the “new wars”: Mozambique’s war of independence and subsequent conflict, the battle for Katanga province in what was then Zaire, to name but a few. Really this was just part of the excuse to ignore the universal principles of the Geneva Conventions; a convenient way to wipe the slate clean, ignore past accountability issues and justify unlawful action. The result has been the use of a catastrophic and tragic event to create death, injury, disability and destruction on an unimaginable scale.

^[1]Peck P (2008) CDC to Spend Another $30 Million Tracking Health Consequences of 9/11 Attack MedPage Today July 24 2008 www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/10246 accessed 28 08 11

^[2]Conetta C (2002) Operation Enduring Freedom: why a higher rate of civilian bombing casualties? Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Report #13 18 January 2002 (revised 24 January 2002) http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html accessed 19 09 11

^[3]Conetta C (2002) Strange Victory: a critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war Project on Defense Alternatives Research Monograph #6 30 January 2002

^[4]Zucchino D (2004) The Americans… they just drop their bombs and leave Los Angeles Times June 2 2002 http://web.archive.org/web/20020604082553/http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-060202bombs

^[5]Steele J (2002) Forgotten Victims The Guardian 22 May 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/20/afghanistan.comment

^[6] UNAMA (2011) Worrying spike in civilian deaths 17 June 2011 http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1783&ctl=Details&mid=1882&Itemid=14089

^[7]Burnham G et al (2006) Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey Published Online October 11, 2006 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69491-9

^[8]Burnham et al (2007) Mortality in Iraq – Author’s Reply The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9556, Pages 103 - 104, 13 January 2007 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60063-4 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960063-4/fulltext

^[9]Horton R (2007) Counting the Cost guardian.co.uk 27 March 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/27/countingthecost/print

^[10]Gall & Sanger (2007) Civilian Deaths Undermine Allies; War on Taliban http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html

^[11]http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

^[12] BBC (2006) Q&A Geneva Rules and the War on Terror 5 April 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4879942.stm

^[13]BBC News (2006) Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling 8 July 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3867067.stm

^[14]Garfield R (2003) Challenges to health service development in Iraq. The Lancet 362, 1324, October 18

^[15]Bhattacharya (2003) Iraqi looters attack hospital and ambulances, New Statesman April 10

^[16]Seth et al (2006) Securing Health. Lessons from nation-building missions Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG321/

^[17] Turlan & Mofarah (2006) Military action in an urban area: the humanitarian consequences of Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine 35, December. www.odihpn.org/report.asp?id=83428

^[18]Doctors for Iraq (2005) Fallujah – one year on. Briefing note, December 12 http://www.doctorsforiraq.org/

^[19]Head to head: Guantanamo prisoners BBC News 6 January 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1763307.stm

^[20]Fink S (2009)Tortured Profession: Psychologists Warned of Abusive Interrogations, Then Helped Craft Them. ProPublica May 5 2009 http://www.propublica.org/article/tortured-profession-psychologists-warned-of-abusive-interrogations-505 accessed 11 03 11 Medact (2011) Preventing torture: the role of physicians and their professional organisations: principles and practice.

^[21] Medact 2011 http://www.medact.org/content/health%20policy%20/MED104336%20Medact%20Preventing%20Torture%20WEBSITE%20VERSION.pdf

^[22] The mental health of UK military personnel revisited The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9727, Page 1666, 15 May 2010 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60717- 9 Published Online: 13 May 2010

^[23]McVeigh K (2011) Soldiers severely injured abroad more likely to survive than civilians in Britain. The Guardian 20 January 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/soldiers-injured-survive-civilians-britain

^[24]Blimes L (2011) Current and Projected Future Costs of Caring for Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Harvard University http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/52/attachments/Bilmes%20Veterans%20Costs.pdf

A new peace camp will be launched at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire following the announcement that a new Reaper Squadron of unmanned armed drones operating in Afghanistan will be controlled from the site.

RAF Waddington is near Lincoln, see map.

The ongoing camp was established on Saturday 3rd September.

Set up by peace activist and former CND Vice-Chair Helen John, more information will be provided as we have it, but you can contact her on 01535 603240.

As the US experiences growing economic crisis – a deficit of $1.4 trillion - and struggles to avoid a default, its massive spending on ‘defence’ – including nuclear weapons – seems hubristic beyond belief. New IMF boss Christine Lagarde is one of the many advocates of an increased debt ceiling for the US, stating that a failure to do so will negatively impact on the dollar and confidence in it as a reserve currency. President Obama himself backs an increase in public debt to sustain public spending but he currently faces opposition from many Republicans who want more government spending cuts instead.

In the light of this disastrous situation, the news that the US House of Representatives has approved £649 billion for military spending in 2012 is almost unbelievable. This is an increase of $17 billion over current levels. But military budget cuts could surely be attractive to both sides in the economic and political debate? A cut in military spending would surely allow either for a reduction in public spending or allow for continued public spending on welfare, jobs and social needs.

Unfortunately, few in the US political establishment seem to have cottoned on to this idea. And nuclear weapons – in spite of Obama’s stated commitment to disarmament – are going to receive even more money. The US plans to increase its spending on nuclear weapons infrastructure by 21% at a cost of $85 billion over the next decade. It is estimated that the full cost of the US nuclear arsenal is $61.3 billion for 2011 alone.

As the vast majority of the US population faces disastrous cuts in its living standards, with many facing unemployment homelessness and dire poverty, now more than ever it is clear that political elites need to reorder their priorities. And as the UK heads towards spending over £100 billion on Trident replacement, ours are no exception. 

As The Telegraph warns against 'mission creep' in Libya, the reality is actually 'mission gallop'. Three weeks ago, Parliament voted to support UNSCR 1973, to 'protect the people of Libya.' Three days ago, Cameron, together with Sarkozy and Obama, made it clear that regime change is the goal. During that Parliamentary debate, after which only 15 MPs opposed military intervention, they received a number of assurances from the Prime Minister which presumably - unless one is totally cynical about politicians - led them to back the resolution.

One such assurance was in reply to a question from Emily Thornberry. Cameron stated: '...in Iraq we had been prepared to go into a country, knock over its Government and put something else in place. That is not the approach we are taking here. We are saying that there is a UN Security Council resolution to stop violence against civilians and to put in place a UN no-fly zone, and then the Libyan people must choose their own future.'

And again in response to a question from Dennis Skinner, he said: 'This is different from Iraq. This is not about going into a country and knocking over its government, and then owning and being responsible for everything that happens subsequently. This is about protecting people and giving the Libyan people a chance to shape their own destiny.' So the Prime Minister could not have been clearer. Parliament was not voting for regime change. It was voting to protect Libyan civilians.

So now that the plan has changed, regime change is the goal and it looks pretty likely that troops will be sent there under some spurious guise or other, shouldn't the Prime Minister go back to parliament, explain his actions, and ask for authorisation for the new plan? Because it is no secret that many MPs are regretting their support for what is - in reality - a war on Libya. Yes of course they should have remembered the despicable lies that Parliament was duped with over Iraq and not fallen for the government spin. Tragically they didn't. So the fact is, there is no parliamentary authorisation for what is now taking place. And the answer is clear: if there is any decency or honesty left in our political system, parliament will be recalled to debate and vote afresh. I'm not holding my breath...

Join us to oppose the bombing of Libya: Tuesday 19th April at 5pm, opposite Downing Street.

Organised with the Stop the War Coalition.

As the Chancellor reveals that Britain's economy will grow at a slower rate than he had previously expected, the escalating cost of the war on Libya is becoming clear. The Daily Telegraph puts the cost so far - for the first four days - at £28.5 million. The Royal United Services Institute calculates a likely cost to the tax payer of around £100 million within four to six weeks.

Whichever way you look at it, it's not cheap. It appears that each cruise missile - and 112 were used on the first day - costs in excess of half a million pounds. Other costs - like £35,000 per hour for keeping a Tornado jet in the air - are mounting up in an alarming fashion. And if a Tornado jet was shot down, the replacement cost would be in excess of £50 million.

With youth unemployment the highest it has ever been, it is hard to stomach such an appalling waste of money. But of course the reality of the human cost is on a different scale altogether. In essence, we are paying to kill innocent civilians, to further degrade and destabilise a country which is in desperate need of international mediation and support. The charade of united 'humanitarian' intervention is collapsing in a welter of mutual recriminations leaving the naked self-interest of western nations exposed for the brutal hypocrisy that it is.

Yet despite the intensity of the rhetoric for intervention it is clear that once again the British people are thinking for themselves on questions of war. A recent ComRes poll showed that while 35% think it is right for Britain to take military action, 65% either disagree (43%) or don't know (22%). As the attacks continue and a bad situation, tragically, is likely to be made worse, that opinion is likely to shift further against British participation in the war on Libya.

Once again I am left wishing that the British parliament had the same good sense as the majority of the British people. The news that only 13 MPs voted against intervention left me with an overwhelming feeling of sadness and regret that in the rush to 'do something', so many people opted for killing.

Please join us this evening - Wednesday 23rd March - from 5-7pm for a Budget Day protest, urging the Chancellor to cut Trident and war, not jobs and public services. We will be assembling at Trafalgar Square and moving to Downing Street for a rally.

And join us on Saturday 26th March for our Cut Trident - Cut War contingent on the TUC March for the Alternative. We are meeting at 11am at HMS President on Victoria Embankment near Blackfriars Bridge. Now, more than ever, we need to make the case against the squandering of our resources on war and weapons of mass destruction.

Military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy. There is no easy solution or quick fix, and one which involves not only the risk of major civilian casualties but also escalation into a major war in Libya and potentially even further afield, is not the way to go.

Today I found myself in agreement with two very different political figures. The first was Caroline Lucas MP, when I watched her last night's appearance on 'Question Time' on BBC IPlayer (17 March). She was right to point out that we have lost all moral authority when it comes to interventions of this kind. Undoubtedly Gaddafi will use this to boost his position, accusing the attackers of imperialist and neo-colonial intent.

But I also agreed with Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister, following Germany's decision to abstain on the UN Security Council vote. There is, he said, no easy way, and intervention is difficult and dangerous. Westerwelle also led Germany's opposition to the continued siting of US nuclear weapons in Europe - Germany included.

The lessons of the last decade's interventionist wars have not been learnt. We deeply regret our government's decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and we urge a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration. To go ahead and bomb without exploring all the political and diplomatic opportunities inherent in this new situation would be cynical in the extreme and lead many more people to the conclusion that the interventionists have political agendas other than humanitarian concern for the Libyan people.

Now is the time for increased sanctions on Gaddafi's regime and all political and diplomatic avenues must be pursued to avoid further loss of life. On that point, it is important that our government is held to account for the conduct of any attacks: it is of great concern that today, when the prime minister was asked if he would give assurances that uranium munitions would not be used, he did not reply.

Join us this evening - Friday 18th March from 5-6pm at Downing Street to protest against military intervention in Libya.

If anyone is thinking that a no-fly zone is the next best thing to humanitarian aid, to support the Libyan rebels and help bring democracy to the region, then think again. It is a full-on military option requiring a massive military attack on Libya - extensive bombing which would undoubtedly result in significant casualties and in all probability lead to major escalation.

Last week we heard US Defense Secretary Robert Gates condemn 'loose talk' about military options in Libya - a clear reprimand for Britain's gung-ho political leaders. Yet in spite of that clear message from our normally 'special' US friends and embarrassing set-backs to early adventurism on the part of Hague and his fellow arm-chair warriors, it seems that our government will not be deterred. Whilst Gates is reportedly set to hold the US line against a no-fly zone, Britain and France are ratcheting up the pressure for NATO to impose one. As NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has stated that NATO will not intervene in Libya unless it has the backing of the UN Security Council, Britain and France have busily drafted a resolution for the Security Council that includes a no-fly zone.

As things stand currently, they are unlikely to get anywhere with it, given the lack of US support and the strong likelihood that Russia or China would veto any military option.

But it makes me wonder what planet our leaders are living on. Leaving aside the myriad problems and failures specifically associated with no-fly zones, haven't they learned anything about the costs and consequences of military intervention? Hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result of the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing and destruction continues and the war has extended to Pakistan. There is no political and social stability, no new era of peace, democracy and human rights. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the claim was made that war and occupation were being undertaken not only to 'protect' Britain in some way, but to end tyrannical and brutal regimes and improve the lot of the people.

But the reality is that foreign powers went into those countries because it was in their political, strategic and economic interests to do so. Everyone knows that is the case and everyone should know that is the motivation for military intervention in Libya today. There is no sudden love of the British political elite for the freedom of the Arab peoples. There is merely the reworking in modern times of the age-old drive to exploit an oil rich country. So don't go with the rhetoric for the no-fly zone. Foreign intervention won't save lives. It will close down a future of freedom and self-determination for the Libyan people. They are fighting to determine their own future and it is they themselves who must and will make it.

Join the demonstration: No military intervention in Libya, Downing Street Protest: Saturday 12th March 2pm

Guest post by Jeremy Corbyn MP, Vice Chair of CND

Last week front-bench defence spokesman Jim Murphy decided to resurrect Tony Blair's discredited interventionist foreign policy.

In the context of the Middle Eastern and north African uprisings, he felt it was time to talk again about Western intervention. a

Al-Jazeera interviewed an unnamed Libyan man who was desperately looking for his missing brother amid the chaos and terror of the western towns near Tripoli.

Asked if he felt Western intervention would be a help, his retort was short, sharp and brusque.

"We do not want another Iraq here!"

Politicians have a woeful inability to understand that the people across the Arab nations, from Tunisia to Yemen, are rebelling against poverty and autocracy.

They are not making a plea for the Western ex-colonial powers to come in and resume the role that they were denied in the 1950s. The protesters are facing guns, planes, tear gas and water cannon made in Britain, the EU or the US.

Murphy is part of a small band of Blairite ultras who follow the doctrine that intervention by the West is a good idea. If it fits with international law that is a useful bonus, if it does not it does not matter.

Blair and Bush held an unshakeable belief in the moral certainty of their mission. Blair set this out in his post-invasion speeches in Chicago and later in Sedgefield.

Labour is now dominated by the decision to invade Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. Blair's decision to side with Bush after September 11 2001 was a conscious step to enhance Britain's relationship with US neocons, while the Afghan adventure was based on the theory that Osama Bin Laden had bombed the US and therefore bombing Afghanistan would lead to his capture and the whole matter would be swiftly ended.

Ten years later, billions have been spent, much corruption and greed is in evidence and the world is infinitely more dangerous.

Iraq - always a concern for Western policy because of its oil, potential for arms purchases and influence in the region - became part of the Bush "axis of evil" and then the war followed.

After six years, tens of thousands were left dead, with corruption rife and mass demonstrations against the government being savagely put down.

It is against this background that Labour is considering foreign policy alternatives.

While the recent past is uppermost in the minds of Labour members and most have a determination never to repeat the horrors of Iraq, it is not the only skeleton in the cupboard.

Post World War II, the Attlee-led Labour government made enormous and historic social advances in the NHS, the welfare state, public ownership, full employment and a degree of public economic planning.

However, its international strategy was contradictory and misguided. In granting independence to India, despite the mass carnage of partition, it claimed to be fulfilling an anti-colonial mandate.

But the same government resolutely refused to grant independence anywhere else. It fought colonial wars in Malaya and Kenya, enabled the removal of Palestinians for the establishment of Israel, lined up with the US in the Korea peninsula and supported the royalists in Greece.

Labour leaders have seldom, if ever, challenged the imperial trappings of history and are quite content to wallow in splendour at the top table.

The establishment of Nato in 1948 was as much the inspiration of foreign secretary Ernie Bevin as anyone else.

In 1949 Attlee, without consulting his Cabinet, managed to authorise the development of Britain's own nuclear weapons. Thirty years later, prime minister James Callaghan did exactly the same over the Chevaline missile project.

Britain still has among the highest levels of military spending in Europe.

However the other side of the Labour tradition involves support for the United Nations and the role of international law. This was evident in the 1940s just as much as later on.

Support for the UN Charter is one of Labour's basic objectives and Labour governments remain members of all UN agencies.

It is the contradiction between the acknowledged principles and Blair's foreign policy that has had such a catastrophic effect on party morale. This more than any other issue contributed to the party's huge loss of support.

In configuring a new foreign policy there needs to be a changed mindset away from the derivatives of imperial grandeur and towards a more humane home policy.

Britain has a population of 65 million and a vulnerable economic base, so it seems odd to support the notion that it should maintain armed forces with global reach.

Nuclear weapons are immoral instruments of mass destruction, are very expensive and do not provide any realistic defence against supposed attack.

As a start, Labour should pledge not to renew Trident, abide by the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin disarmament of all nuclear weapons.

There are only five declared nuclear weapon states and four outside the NPT system. Britain's moral authority and presence in the world would be enhanced by disarmament, not diminished.

There is also a huge economic benefit from diverting resources to socially useful products and needs, not weapons of war and destruction.

Nato is an agglomeration of Western states established to challenge the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 was the time to end Nato's existence and move the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to centre stage.

But Nato's tentacles have now expanded way beyond its north Atlantic sphere. With mutual assistance requirements and aggressive intentions, it is well past time to challenge its whole concept.

Labour supported the establishment of the United Nations, and then in the 1990s the Rome Statute, establishing the International Criminal Court. It is time that adherence to international law and justice became centre stage in policy-making.

The world is more divided between rich and poor than ever. One in six people suffer food shortages and hundreds of millions are forced to migrate, seek work elsewhere or asylum.

The rapid depletion of resources and subjugation of most international organisations to market philosophies does not make the world more sustainable or safer.

A rational foreign policy does not place the spending on military hardware or threats of war at the centre of its objectives. Instead, the need to rapidly address environmental and human needs, show understanding and respect for different cultures and seek legal and peaceful solutions to conflict are the right way forward.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North. Next Saturday March 5 Labour CND is holding a one-day conference on an alternative foreign policy for Labour at Birkbeck College, London. For more details visit www.labourcnd.org.uk