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?”
Cole
I’m fighting to make sure we don’t have a Tory government for decades to come – which is precisely what will happen if Corbyn is elected. But maybe you don’t care because you’re too busy hawking your conscience around.
Fred Wyropiquet
wildcolonialboy rejected:
“after 9/11 we should have sat on our hands and not sought to remove the Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan?”
There never was the opportunity to do that. Blair brilliantly got international support for Bush to do the one thing that made sense. Without Blair, Bush would have dropped (big) bombs on anyone, anywhere in a frenetic attempt to avenge 9/11. Afghanistan was the one true target with international support and a realschance of doing good. Of course the USA made a total hash of capturing Bin Laden and others and then decided to add Iraq to the list. Too many people, Corbyn at the top of the list, think that, because war is bad, all who go to war are evil and do evil. And fail to ask what would have happened without the war. Regretably what would have frequently happened is another war – sometime a war worse than the one actually fought.
Faerieson
Maybe I care more than you think! I certainly care enough not to want another Blair Tory lite. Now that he’s left office, as a multi-millionaire, what would we say was his legacy?
Your route might see a Labour government, but who would notice the difference? It certainly won’t be addressing the inequalty issue, probably instead hoping to cash in!
Shan
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.
Agreed. Nor will he be defeated by silly bits of twisted smear.
# Of course he will be willing to talk to Putin. Russia is a world power. Cameron has to talk to Putin too.
# Hamas and Hezbollah are both groups Corbyn has said loud and clear he deeply disagrees with. But as a senior statesman and skilled diplomat he was willing to talk with them. ‘Friend’ is a diplomat style courtesy. Twisting such clear facts is dishonest.
# Corbyn has never said or done anything anti-Semitic. The supposed association with a Holocausr denier is a claim made by the denier only. Anyone can say they have an association, or a letter – if so where is this letter? It’s never been produced.
# Galloway has said he supports Corbyn. Corbyn has not said he supports Galloway.
# Corbyn is openly against NATO and he’s far from the only one. There’s a lot of British people don’t like being an American poodle. Nor do they like pouring billions into American weapons of mass destruction. Especially when other European states don’t have to. Our government is impoverished because we have to pay out so much for American arms and bases,
Now if you want to attack Corbyn do it honestly, based on real information.
stevep
We had a Tory government for decades, it was first called Conservative and then New Labour.
Britain has moved too far to the right in a sort of “Bad cop”, good cop” semi-one party state since 1979.
At least Jeremy Corbyn will seek to redress the balance if he becomes leader.
Don`t be too sure about him keeping Labour out of power for decades, he`s popular for a reason with Labour supporters and his honesty and integrity may well be popular with the electorate, too.