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?”
David Lindsay
As they themselves were doing in the opposite direction. You need to get over the strange delusion that the Serbs were Satanic, the Croats were sort of all right, and the Islamists (for so they were, and they wore Nazi uniforms in honour of their fathers and grandfathers, as we now see again in Ukraine) were whiter than white. That was not the situation then. Nor is it the situation now.
David Lindsay
For the benefit of casual readers, Suada is getting a funny little kick by demanding that I prove that Paris is the capital of France by linking to a Wikipedia entry or something. This is on the same level as that would be. Well, I’m not playing. I left primary school a very long time ago.
Suada
David Lindsay thinks that claiming someone collaborated with the SS is the same as claiming Paris is the capital of France. Does Lindsay honestly think he’s fooling anybody or is he really that dumb?
laffin4j3zuz
Hardly one to preach on foreign policy when you have Prince Charles swanning around with the most ruthless tyranny in the world in Saudi Arabia, rubbish article.
stevep
You don`t seem to understand the concept of free speech at all, do you. Just the language of narrow debate and the vilification of those who would stray from it.
Normally I would have you marked down as a Troll but in the interests of free speech, I`ll accept your rant.
Noam Chomsky, whether you claim to have never heard of him or not, is acknowledged as one of the greatest thinkers (and philosophers) of our time. If you choose not to learn from the likes of him and others, that`s your choice. If you choose not to listen to others, that`s your choice.
Oh and I`ve tried to understand and show support to minority groups all my life, I`ve the greatest respect for minority positions, but that doesn`t mean I support your position or the laughably hip CrapSpeak you use to justify it.
There are plenty of minority groups under attack for various reasons in today`s unenlightened world, but please don`t use the plight of the Jews to justify attacking Jeremy Corbyn, it`s disingenuous and rather unoriginal.
If you`ve learnt anything at all in the 25 years since your “education” you`ll know that the world is rarely as it seems and we`re influenced in our thinking by many sources, dedicated to preserving their own interests.
You might try thinking for yourself for a change.