Jeremy Corbyn Election 2017

Download Subtitles



Jeremy Corbyn

Live coverage of a Labour campaign event on foreign policy at Chatham House with party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Jeremy Corbyn. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome, everybody. It is wonderful to see you on a Friday. And Patricia


Lewis, the research director here at Chatham House rent a national


security. It is my great pleasure to introduce to you today Jeremy


Corbyn. I'm sure he needs no introduction to this audience.


Jeremy, as you know, was first elected to the House of Commons in


1983. Previously, he was a local councillor and a trade union


organiser. In 2015, he was elected leader of the Labour Party on what


some might consider a radical platform of increasing wages and


rights for workers, full commitment to a public National Health Service,


free at the point of use, and of course, what we are here to talk


about today, and international policy with a strong human rights


focus. I am sure many of you have questions you want to ask on


domestic issues, but if you do, I as chair going to say, please don't ask


them. If you do, I would suggest you Jeremy that he doesn't need to


answer them. Is it ideal? -- a deal? So, Jeremy will speak first. And


then we will get into the question and answer session. Just to say that


this is on the record. It is being live streamed, so welcome to the


rest of the world great to have with us. For those of you who want to


tweak and follow on Twitter Tom it is #CHCorbyn. Jeremy, we look


forward to what you have to say. Thank you, Patricia. People Before


Profit Thank you very much for that and


thank you to Chatham House for inviting me here today. This is


actually a sad day for Chatham House. The director can be here


because he is attending the funeral of Michael Williams, who has


recently died of a terrible cancer. He was Robin Cook's special advisor


and later special envoy at the United Nations. Robin Cook was a


great friend of mine and he relied heavily on Michael Williams for


support and advice. We should commemorate that today and


understand why the director can't be here for stuff we send our


sympathies to the family of Michael on their loss. I would also like to


welcome my colleagues from the Shadow Cabinet, Emily Thornberry,


our Shadow Foreign Secretary. You have hotfooted back from Scotland


from Question Time. Shami Chakrabarti, our shadow Attorney


General, who is here on the front row, who brings a brilliant legal


mind to our team, and Kei more, our shadow Secretary of State Front


National development, who gives us an understanding and passion about


need to deal with a conflict outsourced by ensuring that people


are able to lead decent, good and sustainable lives. I thank my


colleagues for all that they do and the support they give. And I want to


thank Chatham House because it has been at the forefront of thinking on


Britain's role in the world, including today. Apparently, this is


being live streamed everywhere. So with the general election less than


a month away, it is a good opportunity to set out my approach


on how a Labour government that I lead keep Britain safe. That is the


primary function of government. Reshape our relationships with


partners around the world and crucially, work to strengthen the


United Nations and respond to the global challenges we all face on the


21st century. And I would like to say a very warm welcome to the UN


special representative from Somalia who is here today. Where are you


sitting? Thank you very much. Kate adviser, wonderful to see both.


Anybody else haven't referenced who I know, consider yourselves


welcomed! On Monday, we commemorated Victory in Europe Day, Jennifer is


real of the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe -- the anniversary


of the victory over Nazi Germany. The EJ marked the victory over


fascism and the end of a global war that had claimed 70 million lives.


Think of that figure. 70 million lives were lost in the Second World


War. General Eisenhower, supreme Commander of the Allied forces in


1944, who was based right here in this square, preparing the plan for


the invasion of operation overlord, later went on to become Republican


President of the United States during some of the most dangerous


years of the Cold War in the 1950s. Is He gave a stark warning of what


he described as the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the


military industrial complex. He went on to say - only an alert and


knowledgeable citizenry can excel the proper meshing the huge


industrial and military machine of defence with our peaceful methods


and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Sadly,


it's more than 70 years since he made that speech. Sadly, in more


than half a century, I think it's clear that easen hour's warning has


not been heeded. Too much of our defeat about defence and security is


one dimensional. You are either for or against, what is presented as


strong defence, regardless of the actual record of what it has meant


in practice. Alert citizens, or political leaders, who advocate


other routes to security are often dismissed or treated as unreliable.


My own political views were shaped by my parents' description of the


horrors of war and the threat of nuclear holocaust. Indeed, my


parents met whilst organising solidarity with the elected


government of Spain against Franco-'s fascists during the


Spanish Civil War, which of course were supported by Hitler and the


Nazis. My generation grew up under the shadow of the Cold War. Our


black and white televisions throughout the 50s and 60s and into


the 70s was dominated by Vietnam. As a young person I was haunted by


images of sievians fleeing chemical weapons, used by the United States.


I didn't imagine that nearly 50 years later we would still see


chemical weapons being used by innocent civilians, what an abject


failure. Indeed I met recently a Vietnam War veteran who had been


involved in using at orange and is still traumatised by that


experience. How is it that history keeps repeating itself? At the end


of the kold war, when the Berlin Wall came down, we were told it was


the end of history. Global leaders promise administer peaceful, stable


world. It didn't quite work out like that. Today, the world is more


unstable than even at the height of the Cold War. The approach to


international security we've been using since the 1990s simply has not


worked. Regime change wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and


interventions in areas haven't always succeeded in their own terms.


Sometimes they have made the world a more dangerous place. This is the


fourth general election in a row to be held while Britain is at war and


our Armed Forces and our reaction in the Middle East and beyond. The fact


is that the war on terror has been driven, which has driven these


interventions, has not succeeded. It has not increased our security at


home. In fact, many would say, just the opposite. It's caused


destablisation and devastation abroad, and last September, the


House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report


on the Libyan war which David Cameron, as Prime Minister, promoted


our intervention in. They concluded the intervention led to political


and economic collapse. Humanitarian and migrant crisis and fuelled the


rise of Isis in Africa and across the Middle East. Is that really the


way to build a security for our people? The people in Britain, who


seriously believes that's what real strength looks like. We need to step


back and have, I think, some fresh thinking. The world faces huge


problems. As well as the legacy of regime change wars, there is a


dangerous cocktail of ethnic conflicts, food and security, water


scarcity and fast-emerging effects of climate change. And to that mix


add a grotesque and growing level of inequality in which just eight


billionaires, eight billionaires own the same wealth as 3.6 billion of


the poorest people on our planet. And you end up with a refugee crisis


of epic proportions, affecting every continent in the world with more


displaced people in the world than since the Second World War. Indeed,


there are some estimates that think there are more displaced people than


at any time in recorded history. These problems are getting worse and


they are fuelling threats and instability. The global situation is


becoming more dangerous. And the new, United States' president seems


sadly determined to add to the dangers by recklessly escalating the


confrontation with North Korea, unilaterally launching strikes on


Syria and opposing what was a great achievement as President Obama's


nuclear arms' deal with Iran and the suggestion, he was backing a new


nuclear arms race. A Labour Government will want a strong and


friendly relationship with the United States. But, we will not be


afraid to speak our mind. The United States is the strongest military


power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility


to use its power with care, and support international efforts to


resolve conflicts, collectively and peacefully. Waiting to see which way


the wind blows in Washington isn't strong leadership and pandering to


an erratic administration will not deliver stablted. So, when Theresa


May addressed the Republican Party conference in Philadelphia in Jan,


she spoke in aalmostist terms about the rise of China and India, and the


danger of the West being eclipsed. She said - America and Britain had


to stand together and use their military might to protect their


interests. That's the sort of language that led us into the


calamities in Iraq and Libya and other disastrous wars, that stole


the post-Cold War promise of a new and peaceful world order. I do not


see India and China in those terms. Nor do I think do the vast majority


of Americans or British people, want the boots of young men and women on


the ground in Syria, fighting a war that can escalate the suffering


further. Britain seems better than shrimp outsourcing our country'ses


were spority and security to the whims of the Trump White House. So


no more hand holding of Donald Trump. A Labour Government will


conduct a robust and independent foreign policy, made in Britain. A


Labour Government would seek to work for peace and security, with all the


other permanent members of the United Nations' Security Council,


the United States, China, Russia and France. And with other countries, to


play a major role, such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Germany, we


have to reach out and work with others. The philosophy bomb first,


talk later approach to security has failed. To assist with it, as the


Conservative Government has made clear it is determined to do, is a


recipe for increasing, not reducing threats and security.


I'm often asked, if Prime Minister, if I would order the use of nuclear


weapons. It is an extraordinary question when you think about it.


Would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would


you risk such contamination of the planet that no life to exist across


large parts of the world? If circumstances arose where there was


a reoption, it would represent a complete and cataclysmic failure. It


would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe


for human kind. Labour is committed to actively pursue, disarmament


under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And we're committed to no


first use of nuclear weapons, but let me make this absolutely clear.


If elected Prime Minister, I would do everything to programme tect the


security and safety of our people and our country, that is our first


duty. And to achieve it, I know, I would have to work with other


countries to solve problems, diffuse tensions and build collective


security. The best defence is for Britain, actively engaged in the


world's solutions. It doesn't make me a pacifist. I accept that


military action under international law, is a last resort in some


genuine circumstances, if necessary. But it is a far cry from the war and


interventions that have become almost routine, I will not take less


tours on security and human Tait from a Conservative Party who stood


by in the 1980s, who refused to introdeuce sanctions when children


were on being shot down in Soweto. Once again, in this election it's


been clear that a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote to


escalate the war in Syria, risking military confrontation with Russia,


adding to the suffering of the Syrian people and increasing global


insecurity. When you see children suffering in war, it's only natural


top want to do something. But the last thing we need is more of the


same failed recipe that served us so badly and the people so


calamitously. Labour willp stand up for the people of Syria. We'll press


for war crimes to be properly investigated and work tirelessly to


make the Geneva talks work. Every action that is taken over Syria,


must be judged. But whether it brings a help to the tragedy, the


appalling tragedy of the Syrian war, or does the opposite. Even if Isis


is defeated militarily, the conflict will not end until there is a


negotiated settlement involving all the main parties, including the


regional and international powers, and an inclusive government in Iraq.


All wars and conflicts eventually are brought to an end by political


means. So, Labour boo adopt a new approach -- would adopt. We will not


step back from our responsibilities but our focus will be on


strengthening international cooperation and supporting the


efforts of the United Nations to resolve conflicts. A Labour


Government will respect international law, and oppose


lawlessness and unilateralism in international relations. We believe


passionately human rights and justice should drive our foreign


policy. In the 1960s, Harold Wilson's Labour Government worked


for and signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As Prime


Minister, I hope to build on that achievement. Labour's support for


the renewal of the Trident system doesn't preclude from working for


meaningful multi-natural steps to reduce reductions in nuclear


arsenals, a Labour Government will pursue a commitment to the


inter-Longing instruments of defence, diplomacy. For all their


bluster, the Tory record on defence ina security has been Frankly one of


incompetence and failure. They've balanced the books on the backs of


servicemen and women. Deep cuts in the arm. Stagnant pay, worsening


conditions, poor housing, the morale of our service personnel and


veterans, is at rock bottom. And as the security threats and challenges


we face are not bound by geographical borders, it's vital


that as Britain leaves the European Union, we maintain a close


relationship with our European partners, alongside Nato, to keep


spending at 2% but that means working with our Allies to ensure


peace and security in Europe. We will work to halt the drift towards


confrontation with Russia. And escalation with Russia. We need


to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the


Russian-NATO border and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of


international conflict. We'll back a new conference on security and


cooperation in Europe and seek to diffuse the crisis in the Ukraine,


through implementation of the mi. -- Minsks agreement. We'll work with


the European Union to promote global and regional security. This means


our Armed Forces will have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the


full range of obligations, ensuring their versatile and able to


participate. Rapid stablisation, disaster relief, UN peacekeeping and


conflict resolution activities. Because security is not only about


direct military defence, it's about conflict resolution, and


preventions. Under pinned by strong, diplomacy.


The next Labour government will invest in our diplomatic network and


consular services. We will seek to rebuild some of the key capabilities


and services that have been lost as a result of Conservative cuts in


recent years, such as the loss of human rights advisers in so many of


our embassies around the world. Finally, while Theresa May seeks to


build a coalition of risk and insecurity with Donald Trump, a


Labour government will refocus Britain's influence towards


cooperation and peaceful settlements and social justice. The life


chances, security and prosperity of our citizens are dependent on a


stable international environment. We will strengthen our commitment to


the United Nations, we are aware of its shortcomings, particularly in


the light of repeated abuses of the veto power in the United Nations


Security Council. We will work with our allies to build support for


United Nations reform in order to make its institutions more effective


and more responsive. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we


will provide respect for the authority of international law. To


leave this work, Labour has created a minister for peace who will work


across the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Commonwealth Office.


We will reclaim Britain's leading role in tackling climate change,


working hard to preserve the Paris agreement and deliver on


international commitments to reduce carbon emissions. We will re-examine


the arms export licensing regulations to ensure that all


British arms exports are consistent with our legal and moral


obligations. This means refusing to grant export licences for arms where


there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit suicide violations


of international humanitarian law. Weapons supplies to Saudi Arabia,


when the evidence of grave breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen is


overwhelming, must be halted immediately, as Emily has made clear


many times in Parliament. I see it as the next Labour government's task


to make the case for Britain to advance a security and foreign


policy with integrity and human rights at its core. It is a clear


choice at this election between continuing with the failed policy of


continual and devastating interventions that have intensified


conflicts and increased the terrorist threat, or being willing


to step back, learn the lessons of the past and find new ways to solve


and prevent conflicts. Dwight Eisenhower said on another occasion,


if people can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the


thought of global war almost a sentence was suicide, you would


think that man's intelligence would include also his ability to find a


peaceful solution. And in the words of another American, Martin Luther


King, the chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, was produced


more wars, must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark days


of annihilation. I believe we can find those solutions. We can walk


the hard yards to a better way to live together on this planet. A


Labour government would give leadership and a new and


constructive way, and that is the leadership we are ready to provide


both at home and abroad. Thank you very much.


Thank you, Jeremy. Before going to the floor and firstly to our


membership, I would like to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, when


you are in the UN is a permanent member of the Security Council, to


make things work, you need to have an agreement with all five permanent


members of the Security Council, and they are protecting others. So you


need to do deals across the board, often with countries with poor human


rights records, in order to achieve what you want to achieve. How does


that square with a foreign policy that is based on human rights, that


is based on an ethical approach? How do you manage to square the method


and the end result is? You have to measure your policy against the


human rights records that we want, and the obligations that all five of


the permanent members of the Security Council have signed up to


through the universal declaration and through the International


Criminal Court, which is not universal, but we wish it were. And


the other conventions such as rights of the child, the rights of women


and the rights of environmental survival. You have to engage with


those countries on it. There is evidence that where you do engage,


things begin to change. The engagement with China on


environmental issues has changed Chinese attitudes a lot, and I


suspect the level of pollution in Chinese cities has changed attitudes


a lot. It is a question of being prepared to engage. It is not always


lecturing people, it is learning from them as well. But it is also


recognising that we can't go on as a planet, just presiding over this


task level of inequality and accepting that there are tens of


millions of displaced people and refugees, trying to survive often in


the poorest countries in the world. The numbers who come to Europe by


comparison with the rest of the world are quite small. But the


disaster often affects the poorest in the poorest countries in the


world. Think what it is like to be festering in a refugee camp in


Libya, just trying to survive. So the five permanent members of the


Security Council do have a special responsibility in this, and you do


have to engage with them. I would want to engage with Russia on human


rights issues just as much as I would with China or any other


country. As you know, people have come to welcome your letters from


citizens at premises questions. We thought we would take a leaf out of


your book. OK. Which citizen has written to us? It is a letter from


Cheltenham. She is addressing something you have not talked about.


Dear Patricia, please ask Mr Corbyn what he would do to increase cyber


security in the UK, at the same time making sure that we keep our privacy


online defended from attackers. Cyber security is a good question.


It is probably the greatest threat that is faced all around the world


at the present time. Cyber attacks can disable transport systems,


disable communications, disable media, interfere apparently in


elections in some countries. I am making no suggestions about anything


in this country. It's OK, put your pens down! But it is a good question


and a very serious one. You have to ensure that we have got the


capability to deal with cyber attacks against our crucial


infrastructure, which is of course telephone, mobile phones and all the


rest. There is also the question of surveillance. We have challenged the


Government on this over the question of the right of universal intrusion


into people's e-mails, which I think is totally wrong. As a member of the


Justice select committee, we had these discussions with the European


Union during many delegations and we put forward a proper amendments to


recent legislation in the House so that we protect the privacy of the


individual, but recognise that cyber attacks are real and extremely


dangerous. We live in a very high-tech, complicated world, where


if you interfere with security systems surrounding power supplies


or anything else, you endanger life very quickly. You can kill people


without firing any kind of gun. This is the challenge of our time, and it


is time we faced up to it. Thank you to Pauletta of Cheltenham.


I am now going to our membership, and I am looking to people at the


back primarily, who are young and of any gender they wish to be. So you


are looking at only young members? Not quite. I just want to start of


the questioning with a voice from the future? Is there anyone? Let me


call on you is the first speaker. Thank you very much. I run the US


and America programme here at Chatham House. You have laid out a


platform that is almost the antithesis of the platform being


laid out by Donald Trump. You have expressed that there will be no


intention of handholding with the American president. But you also


have to recognise that there are huge links between the US and the


UK, economic links, intelligence links. How are you going to pass


those two things, on the one hand very publicly saying you disagree


with the positions taken by their administration, but on the other


hand trying to ensure that there is the economic engagement, the


investment and intelligent engagement? Let me take two more


questions. If I can go to this gentleman? Went to the microphone


and say who you are. Hello, my name is Max Nicholson and I am a


postgraduate student at King's College. What future with the


intelligence community in the UK have under a Labour government, and


would you seek to make changes to the investigatory Powers act? And


the gentleman here? Sean, member of Chatham House. On the handholding


point, you said no more handholding with Donald Trump. But I don't see


that there is anything wrong with two men in this day and age holding


hands in public. And listening to your speech, I think that actually,


there are many points that you and Trump have in common. You both


described the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a catastrophe. And your


commitment to the renewal of Trident anti-spending at least 2% of GDP on


defence will presumably get Trump to want to hold your hand. My question


is the one area in which you seem to focus on in your speech was North


Korea. You seemed to be very critical of Trump's approach. So I


would like you to flesh out your approach to the North Korean


problem. Thanks for those questions. On the first question, sorry? I


can't read my own writing! The approach to US trade. Clearly, we


have a close relationship with the United States. We have a cultural


and trade relationship and we have ever since the First World War a


military relationship with the United States. Does that mean we


always agree with every US president? Not at all. The British


government at the time, was politically supportive of the


Americans in Vietnam, didn't commit British troops to it. Therefore, one


would suggest that there was some degree of criticism implicit in


that. Does it mean you can't have a relationship with them? No. It is


the opposite. You have a relationship and it is critical, but


it is not just with the US president. There are day-to-day


relationships with members of the House and the Senate as well as the


different communities across the USA. I have been in the USA many


times, met huge numbers of people of diverse political opinions. You work


with them all. But the relationship with the USA is an important one and


something we would want to maintain. On the question about the


Investigatory Powers Act and intelligence community, yes we would


maintain GCHQ. And we would ensure that the powers of investigation


into the citizen are backed up by a legal process. We would not give


unaccountable power of investigation into somebody's life. If the


authorities want to investigate streams of e-mails or whatever else,


they would have to get legal backing to do it. We don't want to create a


surveillance society where there is untrammelled power of interference


in the lives of the individual or of their privacy. Thanks for your point


about handholding. Obviously, a Labour government would meet with


President Trump and would have discussions with him. You raised the


point about North Korea. I am clear that the nuclear Non-Proliferation


Treaty is important and must be made to work, but there are a number of


nuclear armed countries that don't have membership of that treaty,


North Korea being one of them. The six party talks were making a great


deal of progress. The only way forward in the crisis in relations


between the United States and Korea has to be a resumption of the six


party talks, encouraging and thanking China for what it has done


so far in trying to defuse tensions and also working with the South


Korean government at the same time. The idea that one would countenance


the bombing of the people of North Korea or of North Korea sending


missiles that would kill others is appalling honours are there has to


be a relationship. The Obama administration seemed to be moving


in the direction of building closer relations and trying to develop some


sort of dialogue with North Korea. I think that is a good idea and we


should encourage that. We assume diplomatic relations with


a country that has effective government. We do have relations. I


think it is important we develop that principle. A couple of


questions here. John Pienaar BBC News. What do you


say to viewers about nuclear retaliation, that you would never


use it first and what due say to supporters of British military


power, where it is not clear in what circumstances, you would ever order


forces into the boo he will why, in or out of Nato and including strikes


against Islamic stake. Morning. You say military action in some


circumstances are necessary, you opposed the in Kosovo and Sierra


Leone, in retrospect where those interventions the rye thing to do.


And in four weeks' time you could be not just Prime Minister but de facto


commander in chief, when you think about the enormity of the office, is


that the part of the job that scares you most? And last question, over


here? # You mentioned the problem of the veto how else would you seek


just fiction for action, and what are you trying to protect... The


question about our security is par rap mount. I have made that very


clear, Emily made it clear in her statements and as have others. The


pornces is to protect all of our people to make sure they are not


under any kind of threat. Does that mean there are a ultimately some


circumstances where you use military force, yes, there are. And, you


think back to our history, many in this room, well, nobody in this room


was around at the time of the First World War. I'm sure many would have


questioned its legitimacy in its whole approach. Doubt if many


would've questioned it ultimately in the Second World War because of the


catastrophicy that approached in the rise of the Nazis, all across


Europe. I think there has to be, ultimately, that preparedness to use


military force. Now the question that was raised also, in continuing


your theme, concerning, for example, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the


situation in Kosovo is not good. Could it have been dealt with in a


different way, and could there have been a different approach? Yes, I


believe there could. On Sierra Leone, there was actually quite wide


agreement on the principles behind it, but there has to be a follow-up


as well. And the follow-up has to be the kind of support and


nation-building you give at the end and there have been places, I have


been to, where there has been UN-backed military action in order


to bring about or ensure a ceasefire and continue development of that


country. For example, I was a UN observer at the East Timor


referendum which had come at the end of an appalling civil war which had


gone on for decades with tens of thousands of people who lost their


lives and that military UN interinvestigation, to enforce the


ceasefire, by in large, worked. I think you have to be aware that


there are cases where you can do that but it has to be done on the


basis of law and it has to be done through the United Nations. On the


question of vetoes and responsibility to protect, I'm


interested in the responsibility to protect, issue an argument. Again, I


think it has to be backed up by international law and backed up via


the United Nations. I have also been in Rwanda and Boyer


the United Nations. I have also been in Rwanda and the war there has


probably claimed more lives than any other conflict that has happened


since the Second World War. It has not had the attention of the world's


media or concentration of the world's media and the killing has


gone on, rain has become an instrument of war in the DRC and


indeed I have been in Goma meeting hundreds of women who were


collective victims of rain and it was the most traumatic and educative


moment of my life talking to them. Could more have been done? Yes.


Could we have done more to promote a ceasefire? ? Yes. Could we've done


more to challenge blood diamonds? And other things brought out of the


DRC? Yes. Many questions, I ask, why didn't we. Some of that is the


wealth coming out of there. Could doing have been done to intervene at


the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Yes, I believe it could, I have met


people in Rwanda and Burundi, who feel bitter to this day that more


was not done. Again, there seems to be an assumption that a war this


Africa is somehow rather different than something on the edges of


Europe. I think we have to engage. We also have to engage positively


afterwards, because, if you think of nations that have come out of


conflict, take Columbia, take El Salvador, Columbia, decades and


decades of civil war, eventually, by good action by neighbouring


countries, a ceasefire was produced and a peace process has developed


but if you don't stay the course afterwards, as happened in El


Salvador, those that were formerly protagonists in the civil war, then


end up in criminal gangs and you have a similar degree of killing


ininstability, this time for crime, rather than the purposes of


engagement in that civil war. So, it is about engagement but it is also


about use of the UN and international law. My question mark


is over unilateral action. Sory, I know it was a long list of


questions but would you mind answering the seconder part of mine


that whether being de facto Commander-in-Chief, being the Prime


Minister, would it scare you? Just for those hop couldn't hear? The


question was, whether I nund part of the job the most frightening. Not at


all. I want to see a peaceful world. I have spent my life wanting to see


a peaceful world. I I have spent my life working for the human rights of


all. And ensuring that everybody has some chance in life. So if you don't


mind one slight anecdote, I met a group of refugees, in a refugee camp


in Syria, before the present conflict broke out and these were


people living in tents on the border of Iraq and Syria, in appalling,


appalling conditions, they deserve better. I was talking to a


14-year-old girl and her family, one of whom who died because the tents


had burnt down. I said - what do you want to achieve in your life? And


this child, in a tent, in the middle of misery and everything else, she


said - thank you for your question, I want to be a doctor.


Wow. She had ambitions. You see those all


over the world and so, the opportunity of leading a Government


that will help to promote international law, will address


issues of global imbalance and insecurity and will be realistic


about terrorist threats, realistic about threats of cyber insecurity,


is something that I actually relish. Because, because our task, surely


has to be to leave the world better and more peaceful for the next


generation, rather than more dangerous and at war than the next


generation. You have to deal with the problems all over, you have to


deal with them in an international multilateral way.


You are very popular Jeremy, everyone wants it ask you a


question. John, is this a presentation? John sees me almost


every day. John Pienaar sees me almost every dau, you are causing


upsets with Sky. You are starting trouble with your mates.


! Briefly for the sake of clarification, if I may. No, no.


John, can we move on, please? Let's move on. It is unfair in the rest of


the audience. A lady in the third row back, in the red jacket. Wear


red if you want to be noticed. A trait that works. I'm head of policy


from Global Justice Now, two questions, one on climate.


Considering that the policy of President Trump seems to be bent on


making it more difficult for the even minimum agreements in the Paris


accord impossible, what will be your position on that? Second is on the


South China Sea. Considering the golden age relationship with China


and historical relationship with the UK. US what will be the policy on


South China Sea? I knew you would ask good questions. At the back. I'm


a resevener with the North African programme at Chatham House. You


mentioned the need to have human rights at the heart of UK foreign


poll sane you also mentioned the need to work towards and support a


peaceful agreement in Syria. But we know that the Al-Sadr regime in --


Assad regime has persecuted the people and conducted human rights'


positions on a huge scale, can I ask you to clarify your position on


that. And the last question here. Mr Corbyn, Sky News. If you become


Prime Minister next month, will you immediately withdraw the RAF from


sorties in Syria and Iraq? And if it is better to talk rather than bomb,


what would you say to Isis? OK. First of all on the points asked


about climate change, I more than regret the language President Trump


used during his election campaign about the global threats of climate


change and environmental degredation around the world. And I did indeed


attend the Paris conference on climate change for a short time


myself. And we have to be totally realistic that unless we are to take


even more serious action than we do now, on emissions, on pollution, and


on environmental degredation, lots of life on the planet is under


threat. We have conflicts and wars based on environmental disasters, we


have to be prepared to do far more to sustain our natural world and


environment. The refugees from Darfur have got involved in a


conflict when in fact they are basically environmental refugees and


there are many, many other examples around the world, so we would adhere


absolutely to it and indeed the last Labour Government was very strong in


supporting all the international conventions, both on pollution, as


well as on Co2 emissions and the affects of global warming. So I


would be very strong on those issues and indeed have been involved in


many campaigns on those for a very long time. We can't go on polluting


our seas, in the end we pollute ourselves if we carry on doing that.


The issue about the South China Sea, yes, there are obviously problems


with China's behaviour. There has to be pressure put on them. There has


to be an agreement reached. You cannot just say - because it is


China you can't say anything to them. You have to do something about


it. China wants to be part of the world community, we all want


everybody to be part of the world community, therefore that means


putting UN pressure on them over their activities in the South China


Sea. On the question that was raised at


the back about human rights, as is central foreign policy, of course it


is, and I absolutely agree with you, the Assad regime has committed the


most appalling human rights' abuse using, as have other forces in the


region. There has to be a political process. That political process must


also involved Iran. Geneva 1 didn't work because Iran wasn't involved.


Geneva 2, or if now to be Geneva 3, must involve all the actors in the


region, including Iran. I find it more than regrettable that President


Trump now seems it be trying to tear up the agreement that President


Obama's Government and others had so painstakingly negotiated with Iran,


which also had with it, the possibilities of improving human


rights in Iran by a human rights' negotiation process and this is' got


to be - always got to be important. On what we will do over RAF presence


and sorties, we'll examine what they are doing straightaway, examine what


their presence is, straightaway but above all, that fits into the whole


point I am asaying - I would do everything I possibly could, in


order to reignite the peace process, to ensure that there is a Geneva 3,


dealing with the conflict in Syria, and clearly isolating Isis is very


important. Their arms and their money don't come from nowhere. They


are being supported by a lot of people who are pouring money and


arms into them and so, those people that have been - whose lives are


being destroyed by Isis and its behaviour, need to also be


recognised that the people that in effect are killing them, are those


that are giving money, arms and allowing them to send oil which


funds the whole Isis, there has to be a comprehensive political and


economic approach to the. Would you look at introducing a financial


tracking approach? #123450 Much stronger financial tracking approach


is very, very important, if you don't do that you don't know where


the money is coming from and where it is going to and the amounts of


money floating around the world that have come from international drug


dealers and others, not so much in Syria but in other parts of the


world, again, there has to be financial tracking and our approach


to that would be, we'd have very rigorous financial tracking


mechanism. Would you talk to Isis? No. I have


made that clear. I would want to bring about a political solution to


the Geneva process. There is a woman in a green shirt? Deborah Haynes


from the Times. You talk about how you would support the Trident


system. Does that mean that you as Prime Minister would back a


like-for-like replacement of the four submarines? And also, which


conflict where British troops have been deployed since the end of the


Second World War have you actually supported? I will go on now to the


woman at the back. I'm Margaret Owen of peace in Kurdistan. Jeremy,


you're a great friend of the Kurds and I are grateful to you. What will


be the Labour government's policy towards Turkey? Willet condemned the


genocide that is going on against the Kurds in Syria and Turkey? Will


it do anything for the peace process to ensure the Kurds are represented,


and will you review the arms sales two countries which violate human


rights? Were you condemn Turkey for this? Thank you. And the gentleman


on the left, please. I am the High Commissioner of Cyprus. If you words


on Brexit, please, in relation to defence and foreign policy. Thank


you. And in the white shirt? The Corbyn, I delivered a letter on


Wednesday to the Prime Minister. I am a former Royal Marine and we are


concerned about the cuts to defence since 2010. Freedom is not free. I


know there have been conflicts which have not been successful in Iraq and


Afghanistan. But the security of our liberal democracy depends on a


strong defence. Will you therefore guarantee that you will fully fund


the agreement of 2015 and defend the defence spending cuts that have


undermined our ability to preserve our freedom in the future? Thanks


for the questions. On the deployment of British troops, yes, there are


deployments, largely through the United Nations, that I think are the


right thing to do. I mentioned what went on in East Timor. Great work


has been done in peacekeeping in Cyprus by British forces. There has


also been incredible work done by Royal Marines and others in helping


refugees to survive who have been at risk in the Mediterranean. Talking


to people in the Royal Navy about this, someone said to me it was the


most amazing work they had done in their lives, which was supporting


and protecting life. On the question that Margaret raised about


Kurdistan, the Kurdish people were denied their identity by the


conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles, and they are still


living with the consequences of that. An independent Kurdistan was


originally recognised in the Woodrow Wilson 14 points and then


obliterated a few years later. There are many Kurdish people in my


constituency and I have visited various parts of my life, all parts


of Kurdistan and have witnessed the way in which Kurdish people have


been badly treated. And that has then provoked a backlash of water. I


would be very strong with the Turkish government on its treatment


of Turkish people and minorities under way in which it has denied


their decency and human rights and use all the legal powers we have on


that. If arms are being used to oppress people internally, in


violation of international law, they should simply not be supplied to


them. Any settlement in Syria and the Middle East must include


recognition of the rights of Kurdish people, Armenians and others. If you


suppress somebody's identity, which is what has happened with the


Kurdish people, you end up with the danger of a much greater conflict


later on. It is a question of recognising people's language and


identity, which is important for peace. The point our friend raised


from the Cyprus High Commission, nice to see you here - two make.


Firstly, I support the reunification of Cyprus and the talks to bring


that about. Britain has a special role in this because it is a


guarantor of the 1960 independence of Cyprus. You and I have discussed


this on a number of occasions and we would certainly be active in bring


that about. Emily and I have discussed that with you. On foreign


policy on Brexit, yes, we will want to work with people. We will


obviously still be members of the Council of Europe. We will still be


part of the organisation of security and co-operation in Europe, which I


see as an important instrument of promoting peace and security across


Europe. The point our friend raced from the Royal Marines - yeah, you


probably noticed that I made a point about the way in which man is of the


Armed Forces have often had a frozen -- members of the Armed Forces have


had their pay frozen. Those who are leaving the Armed Forces do not get


the support they need and to many are former soldiers who end up in a


very difficult situation. So I would look at the welfare issues


surrounding our Armed Forces. Your point about the funding of the Royal


Marines and others is an important one because actually, it is that


capability of defending which is most important. When you said you


had delivered a letter, I thought you meant you had delivered a letter


to me. What about Trident? The decision of Parliament was to


endorse the government's proposal for the replacement of Trident. That


is the decision we inherit as a Labour government. We will also


undertake a Strategic Defence Review is all incoming governments do,


looking at aspects of our defence priorities for the future. But we


cannot decide otherwise we would not have a review. We have to end it


there. I know everyone has far more questions. And I think that is a


measure of the success of the event. I would like to thank you, Jeremy,


for making Chatham House the venue where you made your foreign policy


and defence speech. Thank you for being so forthcoming. Thank you for


answering as many questions as you could. Thank you very much.