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
Ok – you are probably right.
But to put my response in context – I and many others are being bombarded by appalling hate speak at the moment (not that this is a new phenomena) by people who will deny being anti-semitic but then spout the most outrageous nonsense.
No one EVER comes out and say “Hi – I’m an anti-Semite.” Even the worst Holocaust deniers will claim not to be anti-Semitic.
So you will have to forgive my initial frostiness. Just look at the nasty, ill-educated crap passing for comments after this article if you need a little more context.
If I offended you – sorry. But the vast majority of offense is coming from the left towards Jews. And it’s a new low point in the history of what we used to call the Labour movement.
And for the record – if you or anyone else tells me they are “anti-Israel” rather than “opposed to the policies of successive right wing Israeli governments”, then I will call you on it. If you are “anti” the existence of that state I will give you a reasoned argument why that is a position founded on myth and prejudice – not defensible in logic or political philosophy.
Just to clarify – I firmly believe in a 2 state solution. I’m not “anti” a Palestinian state. I do reserve the right to pass judgement on fascistic, theocratic, repressive and illiberal parties – Hamas & Hizbollah included. And yes – I condemn the right wing religious Jewish extremists and Likud that lets them wield a disproportionate amount of influence on Israeli policy.
But don’t come at me with an “I’m not anti-Semitic but I’m anti the existence of Israel” argument.
Been there, heard it a million times and I have no respect for that position.
And most importantly – if you read my comment you’ll find that very little of it was actually about Israel. It’s about the fact that the actions and words of Corbyn (and post factum of his supporters) have deeply upset and worried a very very small minority group. And that the Left, liberal media and the Labour Party has totally failed to even acknowledge this. You failed to acknowledge it too.
For the record – I think it’s shameful but long in the making. Corbyn and his fellow travellers have spent 30 years or more helping to create this toxic brew of prejudice masquerading as concern for “peace”.
Fine – if that’s how the “left” (or whatever it wants to call itself now) wants to play it. But don’t expect me to sit quietly by or applaud this descent into hate and political adolescence.
Colin Lawson
This article would be a lot more convincing if the author’s supporting evidence didn’t consist of Mail on Line, and Daily Telegraph articles and various right wing commentators. I would like to see links to actual speeches or articles by Jeremy Corbyn to substantiate the allegations contained in this article. Until I have seen the evidence this article is worthless.
George Carty
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn’s pro-Russian stance is driven by his hostility to nuclear energy?
A Britain that phased out nuclear energy would be heavily dependent on Russian gas (now that North Sea gas is becoming exhausted), no matter how much it tried to greenwash this with wind turbines and solar panels.
One can note that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder – architect of that country’s nuclear phase-out policy – was rewarded almost immediately after leaving office with a €500,000 per year job at Nordstream AG – the company charged with building a pipeline under the Baltic Sea to deliver Russian gas to Germany (and which just so happens to have the right capacity to replace the output of Germany’s nuclear reactor fleet).
Obviously Gazprom knew that his talk of replacing nuclear with renewables was just BS to sucker voters ignorant of energy issues…
George Carty
Islamists? Where’s the Sharia law in Bosnia and Kosovo then?
(You can’t be an “Islamist” if you don’t want Sharia law – it’s kind of the definition of the word…)
George Carty
If you want a real left-wing government, you’ll need to find some way to break the electoral power of the greedy boomer homeowners of London and the south east.
New Labour did pursue some genuinely progressive policies, but they also allowed house price inflation to run rampant (in my view an even more damaging decision than that to participate in the Iraq War) in order to buy the votes of said greedy boomers, who then went on a spending spree funded by mortgage equity withdrawal, splashing out on luxury holidays and imported consumer goods.
Tory austerity is simply about forcing poor youngsters, renters and northerners to pay down the debts which the government ran up to bail out the banks, which in turn had been rendered insolvent by the profligacy of the southern boomers!