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?”
Dee
I may have a beard but I’m no ‘Corbynite’. Would Attlee and Bevin be turning in their graves at how NATO has helped Islamists and the spread of weapons in Africa?
laffin4j3zuz
You maybe not confused but you sure are ignorant of the whole conflict and the EU is hardly free, who votes people into power in the EU, NO ONE, and I dont see anyone in Crimea complaining over Crimea being annexed or invaded as you put it, its the only invasion where people were celebrating and lighting skies with fireworks unlike in Iraq where your buddies killed 1.4 MILLION Iraqis and add on the 500k that died in sanctions in 1991 that nearly tops 2 million dead in total, a figure Hitler would be proud of since you used him in your post, how many died in Crimea? zero?
Its funny West Ukraine wanted to join EU so much they killed more people in a few days in doing so than the entire Crimea conflict? The first journalist killed in the murderous riots was a pro Russian journalist killed in cold blood in his car by Svoboda neo nazis.
And you mentioning Hitler pissed me off, have you seen Svoboda’s logo? Its pretty much a swastika.
In the end the reason the whole conflict started was for the simple fact Russia offered a far better financial deal than the EU/IMF, please research more.
Daniel Johnston
Never in that conversation did I identify as anti-zionist, and during the conversation that stemmed from it I stated *twice* that I don’t hold, support or condone anti-semitism or anti-islam views. The article is about UK foreign policy, as were my comments, not France. Judaism is as much a religion as Islam and I think it’s safe to say that most people who could be considered “anti-semitic” don’t see the distinction between “Jew” and “Semite”.
I too happen to believe that religious beliefs are up to some amount of criticism, I’m not religious myself and I think the world would be safer and more scientifically advanced without religious values holding us back. That said – we live in a free society and people should be able to hold their beliefs without being discriminated against, or lumped together with issues caused my minority extremist groups.
Cole
Calling the Labour government ‘Tory’ is just silly and insulting. Of course it had its faults – Iraq being the worst – but it was massively better than the alternative.
stevep
You obviously love the Jews and by extension, Israel.
That`s great. I love Italy and the Italians but that doesn`t mean I support the historical policies and actions of Benito Mussolini. But I do understand how they came into being.
They happened because of ignorance and intolerance whipped up into racial hatred, same thing with the rise of the Nazis in Germany. People being criticised, imprisoned and finally, executed for having views contrary to the prevailing doctrine.
It wasn`t only the Jews that suffered, but intellectuals, Trades Unionists, Dissidents, Communists, the mentally disabled, ethnic minorities etc. But that`s forgotten history, because people like you only concern yourselves with one aspect of the story.
If your reply is anything to go by, you are falling into the same old trap, trumpeting your own doctrine to the violent exclusion of others.
And your point of view seems to be becoming increasingly narrower with each reply. The faint echoes of jackboots on cobbles resonate through the years with each sentence.
Why not just come right out with it and call me a Jew hater as well as Jeremy Corbyn to justify your argument and your intolerance of free speech.
Nothing could be further from the truth in my case and almost certainly, Jeremy Corbyn`s. I`m no enemy of the Jews or Israel and neither is he. Despite what the Jewish Chronicle might say.
It`s hardly likely to be an impartial and unbiased source of information, in the same way as The Morning Star commenting on Cameron wouldn`t be.
You claim to support the position of the Jews and yet you seem to support the very thing that led and still leads to their persecution, intolerance of the views of others.
Incidentally, I wasn`t referencing Chomsky when I accused you of “CrapSpeak”, but the achingly trendy way you tried to put it across. Perhaps ambitious young TV reporter speak might be more accurate. I`m surprised you didn`t try to squeeze the word “Quintessential” in there somewhere.