Frank Jackson says the Labour leader’s eulogy for Nato is a travesty of history, while Richard Ashwell wonders if he understands what being opposed to war means. Plus letters from Dr Alan Lafferty and Blaine Stothard
I hold no brief for Vladimir Putin, and I am not a member of the Stop the War coalition, but Keir Starmer’s attack on it and his eulogy for Nato is a travesty of history (Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable, 10 February). When the UN was founded in 1945, the imperialist concept of spheres of influence should have become obsolete. But instead of developing common security policies, Nato was established – allegedly – as a defence against a threat from the Soviet Union to attack western Europe. In fact there was, and is, no evidence that there was a plan to overrun the west. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Nato’s alleged raison d’etre disappeared and it too should have been closed down.
The standoff with Ukraine must not lead to war. But an arms buildup on both sides makes war more likely. Only discussion and diplomacy can avoid this catastrophe. Constructive dialogue should be brokered by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which operates with a fraction of the budget of Nato, yet gets no publicity for its successes. Increased support for the OSCE would make a much greater contribution to peace in Ukraine and the rest of Europe than flooding the region with more arms.
Frank Jackson
Former co-chair, World Disarmament Campaign
