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?”
verticalaudio
YSL? On my budget? Are you crazy?
Re your points:
1) The evidence has been put forward re associations with anti-semitic organisations & individuals. There’s lots of it. It’s out there in full view. The next step is usually that journalists etc put the facts to said person, who then denies and puts forward evidence to prove that the evidence is false. It’s not a controversial process. In this case however, Corbyn resolutely refuses to answer the questions. Silence cannot be taken as proof of “innocence” surely? If it is, then I can predict a lot of lawyers going for a late life career change. Read the Jewish Chronicle article. They’ve put 7 very clear questions to him – twice – and he refuses to answer.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer
2) Guilt by association – agree re govts. They have to deal with all sorts of crazies. And that’s just their own Cabinet. But Corbyn has shared stages & platforms with some truly outrageous and nasty people who are Jew haters. That’s not true of a lot of Labour MPs, is it? He’ll be doing just that later on this month at a MEMO conference with a great cartoonist…
And he didn’t have to do any of that in order to pose stiffly for a press photo opportunity whilst at an international summit of corrupt, nefarious world leaders. He choose to do it as an unencumbered free agent during his time as a backbench MP under very little public scrutiny.
Re Blair – you’ll not find me defending him.
3) All those associations undermine his case to have a commitment to equality, anti-racism and progressive social views. Again, the vast majority of Labour MPs (including the other crap candidates) do not have their credibility undermined in this way. Re “diplomacy” – JC is not, and has never carried out a diplomatic role – official or unofficial. He is a profoundly partisan actor. Now it’s ok to be partisan – that’s what politics is often about – but you can’t then claim it to be a diplomatic role or stance.
So – again, which is it?
Lamia
Weak. At any rate, my argument is there, with cited evidence, for anyone to read, while you’ve slunk away having failed to substantiate yours. Have a nice day.
yougottaproblemwiddat
Tell us more about how the State Dept list of “terrorists” is ALWAYS a trusty moral guide even, perhaps especially, when it changes.
Not power politics, no siree, why the thought of it!
Kiosk
Here’s a fact which may come in useful, Steve: when Jews hear someone say, in reply to a moderate statement re. the Middle East, “You obviously love the Jews and by extension, Israel,” then follow that up by saying, effectively, “gee, get a grip, it wasn’t ONLY Jews who died in the Holocaust”, then claim that it’s OK for supposedly left-wing politicians to hang around with – and praise – anti-semites, “in the interests of free speech and understanding”… they immediately recognise an enemy. Or a useful idiot. Which amounts to the same thing, in the end.
Lamia
I didn’t mention the State Department, because I didn’t consult it. Corbyn’s sympathy for extremists has been well-documented here, not least by non-MSM British blogs, for years.
It appears that is often difficult for know-it-all Yanks to grasp that the rest of the world doesn’t revolve around their own politics and media, and we don’t have to come to your government or media to get information about our own country and its politicians. Wind your neck in.