Jeremy Corbyn Election 2017

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.