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
and the majority of muslims are not “hardline”, so in what way does that work to defend the point that being anti-Islam is acceptable? I’m sure I can think of examples of hardline Christians, Jews, Left-Wingers, Right-Wingers or any other winger but I wouldn’t consider applying their opinion to their whole group.
stevep
The debate has been pushed so far to the far-right narrative that embraces the concept of “permanent war” (the war on terror and anyone who disagrees with our aims) and the western world populace has so accepted the reality of it, that people like Jeremy Corbyn who challenge this position, seem like a throwback.
In fact if you take a look at what people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore have been trying to tell us for a decade or more about western global ambitions, then his stance makes perfect sense.
if Jeremy Corbyn advocates talking to unpopular regimes, listening to far-right hate-figures and challenging our current views and position on the world stage in order to help make the world a safer place then he deserves our attention.
Too many take the safe, non-controversial path to pursue political ambitions. Don`t upset anyone, tread carefully on this, don`t discuss that etc.
Diplomacy is one thing, sitting on the fence is another.
Corbyn seems to be cut from different cloth. He has had potential leadership almost thrust upon him and garnered many supporters for his personable nature and honest debating.
He seems to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. It`s refreshing.
The right has for too long had a virtual monopoly on what is up for discussion and as long as it falls within their very narrow framework they don`t put up a fuss. When someone comes along wanting to talk about matters deemed outside of the right-wing framework they are pilloried and vilified as “Lefties”, “Trotskyites”, “Unpatriotic”, “The enemy within” etc. etc.
Let us go forward to a time where real free speech is the norm and anything and everything is up for discussion and debate, not just what is currently “acceptable”.
Jeremy Corbyn might just be up for the task.
verticalaudio
1) Yep – Daily Mail. That’s partly the point i made. Silence from the liberal media when there are clearly real issues and allegations that have not been denied.
2) Daily Mail not reputable – indeed. But Corbyn has refused to deny any detail. How many associations? Well, let’s start with at least 7 organisations and take it from there. Let’s then add at least 4 particularly nasty individuals. Is there a quota of anti-Semitic links that’s ok? If so, please do let us all know. I’ll check my address book…
3) The Mail report re Sizer is actually a plagiarised version of an article from Hurry up Harry in 2012. No one doubted it’s accuracy then.
4) Yep there is evidence of Corbyn agreeing with and condoning anti-Semitic coments. Again, see Hurry up Harry article.
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/04/16/jeremy-corbyn-defends-stephen-sizers-technical-oversight/
5) You haven’t seen comments? “One or two cranks”. Oh good grief. How about you look at the evidence then reconsider a fatuous comment like that?
Same old story isn’t it? So many strongly held anti Israel opinions, so little knowledge of just the basic facts and a refusal to listen when a minority calls you on it. Nice model for life- it could catch on.
Oh, it has.
wildcolonialboy
That’s a pretty mealy-mouthed justification for and minimisation of anti-semitism. Why is it that people who identify themselves as “anti-zionist” have such a mean-spirited and ungallant attitude to anti-semitism? Why is it they are never able to wholeheartedly condemn it, and instead try to minimise and rationalise it?
In any case, French figures for hate crimes provide some context. The Jewish population in France is about 2% of the population, but they are the victims of about 50% of hate crimes. Which community do you think contributes the most to that? It’s not the far right.
And Islam is not a race, it is a religion and a set of ideas, and thus fair game for criticism. Anti-semitism is a racial prejudice based on claimed false attributes of Jewish people. They are not comparable as sentiments.
verticalaudio
Great. You’re clearly happy with a position that states that all ethnic and national groups are entitled to self determination apart from Jews.
If you really can’t see a flaw in the logic and morals of that position then just own it. Look in the mirror and own your prejudice. Because when logic and reason are gone, that’s all you have left.