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?”
DemSoc93
People shouldn’t just be calling you names, they should be engaging with your argument, whether they’re on the left or the right. I can only apologise for the poor manners of some comrades.
What I would say is why are you fighting for a Labour government? What do you want it to do differently from a Tory government? It’s a serious question. Because the other three candidates seem to be OK with abstaining in the face of a welfare bill that will harm many ordinary people. And who have backtracked on the very moderate, barely even social democratic policies that Miliband was advancing. Victory is excellent, but victories can be hollow. To accuse Corbynites of not wanting power is just as bad as calling someone who has fought the Tories for years a Tory. We want power, we just think there has to be reason for having it other than “to stop the other guys having it”. What do we want power for? For social change or merely to things slightly less nastily than the last lot? As long as the party turns first to newspaper millionaires and business men to console them they won’t change too much and then to the people it is heading toward extinction.
There’s no sure path to victory. Not with any candidate. The next election will be the throw of dice. I’d rather throw the dice with my heart in it (as well as my head, Corbyn has been very policy focused). And I will be honest, I couldn’t enthusiastically campaign, and neither can I imagine will the new members or returning members doing so, for the lukewarm offerings of the other three. I don’t know why the other three want to be leader of the Labour Party other than it’s because they want to be leader of the Labour Party.
DemSoc93
And who will save those who suffer? Burnham, Cooper or Kendall? Who abstained in the face of a Tory welfare bill that make the vulnerable suffer more? What on earth do you even want power for? The other three don’t seem particularly interested in getting at the root cause of the suffering of the vulnerable – neoliberal economics, the logic of cut this, privatise this.
I’m sick of being likened to some kind of mad communist for advancing views not miles to the left of Clem Attlee and fairly close to the architect of the NHS, Nye Bevan. You know they say the left of the righteous ones, but this leadership election I have seen the left candidate stick to policies and the soft left and right mercilessly go after people. Go on, calling the emergence of a new mass movement a “little emotional spasm”, go on calling it “self indulgent leftist posturing”. Go on, I dare you. The only effect of your pontificating is to propel Jeremy into the lead.
verticalaudio
Freedom of speech now includes incitement to racial hatred? News to me. but hey..who am i to argue?
Have read plenty of Chomsky thanks and much to learn there. Btw, i imagine you might struggle with the source texts if you think my words were “CrapSpeak”….that was Chomsky lite for your sake.
Very interesting re “not using plight of Jews to attack Corbyn”. I’m looking forward to you telling the readership of the Jewish Chronicle. You might want to read the lead article published today where that paper calls Corbyn to account, asks him (again) to deny the allegations put to him, and sets out why British Jews feel under attack and threatened by him and people like you – his supporters. Mind you, it’s probably just trolling ranting Jews, eh?
Or, will the Jewish Chronicle piece actually be taken at face value by you as a minority position that you will “have the greatest respect for”?
I look forward to finding out, but i think i can guess.
laffin4j3zuz
Ukraine had the CHOICE between EU and Russia, Russia offered the far better deal and they went with Russia and West Ukraine went on a murdering rampage to get their way, big difference.
Woody
So if the Israeli government was to Nuke the West Bank and I took up an anti-Israel position, that makes me “happy with a position that states that all ethnic and national groups are entitled to self determination apart from Jews”? Just to be clear, being anti-Israel doesn’t mean one wants the country to be destroyed.
And you claim to be using “logic”…