Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid was supposed to inspire debate, yet none of the other candidates have challenged him on foreign policy
Jeremy Corbyn’s latest opinion on foreign policy is that the UK should show more respect to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Like his other announcements, they are going unchallenged by his rivals in the Labour leadership contest.
Like French far-right leader Marine Le Penn and UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Corbyn thinks that NATO, rather than Vladimir Putin, is at fault for the crisis in Ukraine.
Indeed, Stop the War Coalition, of which Corbyn is chair, regularly pushes pieces so blinkered they could well have been written by the Kremlin itself, such as the ridiculously titled ‘Why the United States launched its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.’
Moreover, Corbyn expressed regret that Poland was allowed to join NATO, claiming that, ‘We should have gone down the road Ukraine went down in 1990’ (because that has worked out so well).
There’s more. Corbyn’s associations with anti-Semites include: his ‘friends’ Hamas and Hezbollah, his praise for a blood-libel-spreading, 9/11 conspiracy theorist Islamist preacher, who he even invited to take tea on the terrace of the House of Commons, moonlighting for George Galloway on Iranian government propaganda channel Press TV, allegedly donating money to a pressure group run by a holocaust denier and deemed too extreme by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and defending a priest who shared on social media an article entitled ‘9/11: Israel did it’.
As far as I am aware, none of the current Labour leadership contenders have sought to challenge Corbyn’s views on these issues.
It is staggering that Labour Party figures accuse Corbyn of wanting to return to the days of British Leyland or a ‘Soviet-style’ economy simply for wanting to bring the railways into public ownership (something Andy Burnham claims to support), but will say nothing about his repeated association with anti-Semitic figures or his anti-NATO, pro-Russia, pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah stances.
Even in Alistair Campbell’s blog urging people to vote for anyone but Corbyn, there is no proper attempt to challenge Corbyn’s ideology; he simply says Corbyn would be bad for the Labour Party.
If Corbyn can still be defeated it will only be through convincing the party members and supporters why he is wrong – not simply saying he is wrong over and over again.
Whether one agrees with him or not, to the vast majority of people Corbyn comes across as a genuine character, with deeply held convictions (and a record for being the most rebellious Labour MP to back this up). He speaks to Labour members and supporters outraged by the fact the party leadership made such a mess on the welfare bill. Like them, he opposed it and like them, he does not want to tack further to the right.
It is perfectly understandable that party members and supporters are more inclined to vote for someone who comes across as a conviction politician – someone who talks about wanting to turn the party back into a social movement – rather than vote for someone based on whether or not the Tories will fear them.
Put bluntly, people voting for Corbyn know he will not do a Nick Clegg.
By contrast, rival candidates come across as though they are continuing Ed Miliband’s strategy of Balkanising voters: thinking that if they can simply say the right thing to different groups of supporters then they will secure their nominations – clearly this did not work for Ed and is failing epically at present.
There are very serious arguments to be had over many of Corbyn’s views and it’s puzzling that his rival candidates haven’t offered a more extensive critique of them; simply attempting to scare party members into not voting for Corbyn, just saying that he is bad, has failed.
Several MPs claimed they were backing Corbyn not because they support him, but in order to ‘broaden the debate.’ Even at this late stage, can we actually have that debate?
Lorin Bell-Cross is a researcher at BICOM and assistant editor of Fathom Journal. He is writing in a personal capacity. Follow him on Twitter.
241 Responses to “Why is no one challenging Jeremy Corbyn on foreign policy?”
Daniel Johnston
Do you find that phrases like “spare me” and “whines” turn people to your point of view often? You could be making a fair point but I find it hard to see past the belligerent attitude.
You’ll note I said the demonisation of both groups is wrong, but you don’t see any of the top circulated newspapers in the UK lead with stories about Jews taking over our country, scrounging our benefits etc etc – and quite rightly so – there would be outrage. Because anti-Semitism isn’t a mainstream opinion and we wouldn’t allow it to become one. Anti-Islam headlines are constantly thrust into our faces, it’s a lot more ‘normalised’ to be anti-Islam. Neither position is commendable, I’m not sure why I need to defend that point…
wildcolonialboy
Given you are fundamentally denying the self-determining rights of the indigenous people of the Levant, the Jews, and only denying Jews that right and not Arabs, you cannot deny being an anti-semite.
Jews are the indigenous people of that area, Jewish communities continuously inhabited Israel/Palestine and there is no reason to deny their right to a state in their homeland (leaving aside what borders are agreed) except for bigotry and prejudice. You are a racist.
JayDPee
All anti-Israel comments are welcome until that appalling state ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.
Also, your piss-poor attempt to conflate anti-Semitic comments with anti-Israel has outed you as an Israeli propagandist and I claim my £5.
Finally, LFF really do need a kick in the balls for hosting such shite as this.
wildcolonialboy
It is ludicrous to assert that some obscure North London MP inviting IRA terrorists into the Commons brought forward the peace process. And you are either dishonest or ignorant in claiming that Corbyn simply had the peace position years before the government.
Corbyn’s position, like the IRA, was a united Ireland (irrespective of the wishes of the Northern Irisih population) and British troops out. The UK government stuck to their guns, and by the early 1990s the IRA concluded they had no choice but to come to the negotiating table and accept the British preconditions (giving up the armed struggle, decommissioning weapons, taking part in democratic politics).
wildcolonialboy
Are you denying that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group?
Corbyn supports Hamas, therefore he supports Islamist terrorism. Solidarity with Palestine does nto require supporting a genocidally anti-semitic terrorist group. In fact, many on the Palestinian secular left wish these pathetic pseudo-lefty wankers in the West would stop lionising Hamas.
In fact, Corbyn went so far as to praise Hamas’ “dedication to social justice”. I’m sure LGBT Palestinians would be thrilled to hear it