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?”
Jon Stone
Above your post is a long and reasoned argument. Your response is a snide remark. It looks to me like you’re resigned to your suffering and have no interest whatsoever in taking the Tories on – just bitching at anyone who does.
Politics fan
Lots of good points here. However, it’s worth noting that many of the hard line realists in the international relations community (hardly your average member of stop the war) have continually warned against NATO expansion for fears that it will provoke Russia to re assert control over its periphery, and Ukraine does serve to vindicate them.
wildcolonialboy
Well said. Corbyn’s cosying up to groups like Hamas (he did not just call them friends, he praised their “dedication to social justice”), his associations with weird fringe dwellers like James Thring and Reverend Sizer who claim that Jewish people did 9/11, the fact he seems extremely comfortable around Holocaust deniers and anti-semites like Raed Salah, his support for Ghaddafi and Chavez, his decision to invite the IRA into Westminster only weeks after the bombed the Brighton Hotel attemting to assassinate the PM (and it is fatuous to claim he simply had the government’s negotiating position ten years early; Corbyn’s position was a united Ireland and UK troops out, in other words the IRA position which even the IRA eventually abandoned)…. all these are outrageous and it is deeply disappointing that the other candidates have not been slamming him every day for this. It’s almost like they’re afraid to criticise him.
Let us not forget that Corbyn called Clement Attlee “neo-colonial” for his strong support for the American alliance and creating the British nuclear deterrent. The way Corbynites associate themselves with Attlee is ludicrous, given Attlee introduced prescription charges to pay for our Korean War deployment, had a policy of austerity and rationing, wage restraint and price controls (real austerity) and that Attlee sent troops onto the docks to smash communist-provocateured strikes. Let us be under no illusions, if the Corbynites existed in 1949 they would be shrieking “Red Tory” at Clement Attlee.
wildcolonialboy
You seem to be confused. Ukraine as not seeking to join NATO, they were seeking better relations with the EU because Ukrainians by and large see that the European Union is free, prosperous and stable and Russia is not. For this “crime”, Russia invaded the Ukraine and engaged in the first territorial grab supported by military force since Hitler.
Russia has no right to coerce its neighbours, and failing to assist Ukraine now will signal that the European Union is weak and cowardly, and will not stand by its partners when they are punished for seeking good relations with it.
wildcolonialboy
Islamism? In that case wouldn’t you be in favour?