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?”
yougottaproblemwiddat
You personally see nothing wrong with the US govt interfering in the domestic politics of countries far away, building up a global empire of vassal states, crushing democracy if need be, for the benefit of the Western elite.
Now, if a lowly US citizen types out a comment somewhere: foaming outrage!
That’s pathetic, illustrative, and unsurprising.
gaia
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Austin Phillip
Corbyn Is Correct On Russia …
Not Only About The U.S Coup In Ukraine
See Pilger – See Kissinger – See Mearsheimer
See Cohen – See Chomsky
But The Idea We Are Somehow Going To Start A War
With Russia A Nuclear Power In Benefit Of U.S Hegemony .
Because It Makes Left Wing Intellectuals
Feel All Moral …. Is Not Only Delusional / It’s Dangerous
…
I Am Almost Certain . Russia A New Country
Finding It’s Own Way In The World ..
Will Not Be Taking Advice From The Same
Sanctimonious Liberals Who Helped
Murder Almost 1 Million Muslims In The Arab World
Get A GRIP….
The rest Of The Article …Is So SuperficialIt Does Not Warrant A Response
Lamia
In this instance US ‘interference’ amounted to talking to both sides of the politica spectrum in Ukraine. It didn’t amount to invading and annexing its territory, as Russia did. So that is a strawman and in any case irrelevant in this instance.
Now, if a lowly US citizen types out a comment somewhere
This thread is on Jeremy Corbyn. If you hadn’t used the tone you did such in trying to explain the politics of my own my country to me through the lens of the politics/media of your own country, then you would not have got such a sharp reply.
By all means consider the slate wiped.
Esmee Phillips
The alternative to Corbyn is remaining with Britain’s tongue up Washington’s bum, with the occasional loving lick for Tel Aviv.
You faux-red lot might want that. The majority of socialists and radicals in this country don’t. And the majority of voters is more interested in keeping foreign invaders out (e.g. at Calais) then sending our troops to be killed or disabled in foreign oilfields,butchering the natives while telling them it’s all for the good of their ‘modernity’..
PS: Stuff NATO and scrap Trident. Out of the EU. Britain for the British working class.