Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the Labour party, is likely to stir up some much-needed debate about British foreign policy, especially in relation to the Middle East. 

Corbyn's emphasis on promoting human rights and avoiding military adventures in the region is certainly welcome but some of his ideas seem ill-focused and others are alarmingly naive.

---

 
The election of Jeremy Corbyn – a veteran anti-militarist anti-monarchist leftist dissident – as leader of the opposition Labour party has been greeted with horror in most of the British press. Within minutes of Corbyn's election the ruling Conservative party also issued a ludicrously over-the-top statement which warned: "Labour are now a serious risk to our nation’s security, our economy’s security and your family’s security."

Aside from such apocalytic claims, with Corbyn as "Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" we can expect a sharpening of policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives, along with some resetting of the political agenda – an agenda which over the last few years has been dictated mainly by the Conservatives and their xenophobic rival on the far right – the anti-immigrant, anti-EU party, UKIP. Corbyn is trying to change that and in parliament last week he made a point of highlighting Britain's housing shortage, an issue that the Conservatives prefer to keep quiet about.

Somewhere within the mix there ought to be scope for fresh thinking about British policy towards the Middle East, too. Relations with the Gulf monarchies are a particular problem which the government refuses to acknowledge. As a result of our much-vaunted "historic ties" (here, here and here, for example), Britain now finds itself allied to some of the region's most reactionary forces – forces which have already caused serious long-term damage in the Middle East and beyond. The need for a change of course has become even more urgent as a result of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen but the Cameron government still seems mesmerised by the Gulf states' wealth and the prospect of selling them more weapons.

Corbyn, meanwhile, talks of having a special interest in the Middle East – "I'm fascinated by not just the politics of it but by the history of it and the culture of the whole region". He may well know more about the history than prime minister David Cameron and his ideas about the region are certainly different – though he is probably not the person to look to for new solutions to its problems. Retro or recycled, perhaps, but not new. 

That doesn't mean his ideas are all bad (some are certainly preferable to existing policies) but Corbyn does give the impression of being somewhat behind the curve. In an interview with Middle East Eye, filmed during his campaign for the Labour leadership, Corbyn seems far more interested in raking over the mistakes of history than charting a way forward.

 

Corbyn interviewed by Middle East Eye

 
Asked in the interview if there is anyone he regards as "the man or woman of the Middle East", he names Uri Avnery, the 92-year-old Israeli peace campaigner, and Mustapha Barghouti, a veteran activist on the Palestinian side. This says a lot about Corbyn's focus. Although the Israel-Palestinian conflict continues to be a running sore and terrible things happen which should not be ignored, events elsewhere over the last few years have made it increasingly marginal.

Corbyn's apparent preoccupation with Israel-Palestine, though praiseworthy up to a point, raises questions about whether he fully appreciates the magnitude of other issues, such as the scale of the threat posed by religious authoritarianism or the historic proportions of the social and political upheaval now sweeping across the region. His interview offers little reassurance on that score.
 

Corbyn and militarism

But let's look at the more positive aspects of Corbynism. We can be confident that a British government under Corbyn would avoid Blair-style military adventures. In the interview he talks proudly about how he opposed the bombing of Syria in 2013 "in that historic parliamentary vote".

Asked if there is any kind of military action that he would sanction, he replies:

"I think there is a role for peacekeeping forces under UN command. They have to be properly managed, they have to be properly led, they have to have very, very clear terms of reference for what they are going to do ..."

He continues:

"It's got to be on the basis that there's a wish to have a ceasefire in the first place. You cannot go in and bomb your way to peace. You go in on the basis of political negotiations. You go in to support those negotiations. Every war ends with a political agreement. Why not start with a political agreement and cut out the middle part?"

The case against military action in the Middle East is easily made: it tends to make the situation worse rather than better, and there are plenty of examples to illustrate that. The difficult part, though, is working out what – if anything – might be done instead and in that area Corbyn seems no more inspired than anyone else. On the question of how to deal with ISIS, for example, he says:

"What I would do is try to economically isolate them and also try to unite the other groups in the region by giving autonomy – or supporting autonomy rather, as it's not ours to give – for the Kurdish groups and recognise that the vast amount of arms that we've sold to – particularly Saudi Arabia – end up somewhere and those are now being used."

Military solutions are not alone in making matters worse rather than better: non-military solutions can do so too. Empowering the Kurds risks creating new problems further down the line and if it were possible to isolate ISIS economically (which it is not) people struggling to survive under the Islamists' occupation would be among those who suffered.
 

Corbyn and human rights

Corbyn wants a more central role for human rights in foreign policy. "It seems too often, when nations come to agreements on trade, military issues or anything else, it's the human rights agenda that drops off," he says. "It shouldn't. It should be there in the centre of it ... We need to be a constant irritant on human rights."

He also sees continued British membership of the European Convention and the European Court of Human Rights as essential to that. There have been moves within the Conservative party to withdraw from the Convention or give British courts the power to veto decisions by the European Court, but Corbyn emphasises the importance of staying in:

"It's our protection and it gives us some basis on which we can criticise others. If we withdraw from the Convention, who are we to criticise others who are in breach of the Convention?"

This sounds much like a revival of the "ethical" foreign policy formerly promoted by Robin Cook, foreign secretary in the early years of Tony Blair's government, but later abandoned. Corbyn sidesteps such comparisons by claiming he never really understood Cook's idea:

"I think the words that Robin used were very interesting. He said a foreign policy with 'an ethical dimension'. I remember some long discussions with Robin about what this actually meant and he gave me some very long answers but I was none the wiser at the end of it.

"My basis would be that I want to see the protection and preservation of human rights around the world, dealing with issues of global hunger and global inequality and the environmental disaster that is facing his planet. I think they should be the basis of how we go about things ..."

In practical terms, Corbyn says that he – unlike Cameron –  would not have invited President Sisi, the Egyptian dictator, to visit London:

"I would not have invited him to the UK because of my concerns over the death penalty in Egypt and the treatment of people who were part of the former government of Morsi that was elected and the continued imprisonment of President Morsi. That's not to give a judgement one way or the other on the Brotherhood or any other party it's simply to give a judgement on what democracy actually means."

Similarly with Saudi Arabia, especially in connection with British arms sales:

"In the case of Saudi Arabia there are a huge number of issues. One of course is the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, the other is the frequent use of the death penalty, including public beheadings. The other is the treatment of migrants and migrant workers in Saudi Arabia.

"I raised this in a debate in parliament three weeks ago: the question of whether our arms sales to Saudi Arabia are more important than genuine concerns about human rights."

Corbyn speaking in parliament on Saudi Arabia, 21 July 2015

 
He adds that Britain is "actually quite good" at raising issues of the death penalty in the UN Human Rights Council but "much less good" about raising issues of women's rights, LGBT rights, rights of assembly and rights of trade union membership.
  

Corbyn and political rights

Not surprisingly, considering his socialist background, Corbyn makes a particular point of including workers' rights in human rights: "When we are dealing with Iran I want to know why the bus workers in Tehran are so badly treated. Dealing with Saudi Arabia I want to know why migrant workers are so badly treated." 

Oddly, though, there is no mention of political rights in Corbyn's interview. This might be an unintentional omission but, if so, it's a big one. Systematic abuses of human rights are intimately linked to authoritarian forms of government – they are one of the tools with which regimes maintain control. So it's disappointing not to see Corbyn offering more robust support and encouragement for the millions who have taken to the streets in the Middle East demanding accountable government.

This is hardly consistent with his stance in the UK, where he has made much of the democratic way he was elected to leadership of the Labour party and where, as a republican, he famously abstained from singing "God save the Queen" at a Battle of Britain memorial service.

If he thinks it's important enough to take a principled stand against Britain's neutered monarchy it's surely far more important to oppose Arab monarchs who wield absolute power or something very close to it.

Looking beyond the Middle East Eye interview, I did find an article written by Corbyn for the Morning Star which makes reference to the kingdom's "absolute monarchy" and "the overwhelming power of the House of Saud", and describes the Gulf Cooperation Council as a "college of kings". This, however, is not the main thrust of the article which is mainly a critique of western policy in the region, and particularly arms sales.

Another Morning Star article, from March 2011, expresses support for the Arab Spring uprisings but rapidly turns into another critique of western policy:

"From the 18th century onwards Britain and France vied with each other for control and influence surrounding the Suez Canal and later in exploiting the oil resources of the Middle East."

Of course, he might reasonably argue that as a British opposition politician his main task is to criticise British policy (rather than the policies of Middle Eastern governments) and try to change it, but that needs to be done judiciously. Corbyn may not quite fall into the leftist camp that says the Middle East's problems are all the fault of the west, but he comes pretty close.

In the Middle East Eye interview, for instance, he says ISIS is "not in total but in part a creation of western interventions in the region".

More generally, he says: "Colonial decisions taken 1916 in secret, Treaty of Versailles [1919], we're still living with the consequences of that. When people sit down to negotiate internationally, they should read the history first."

These elements have to be acknowledged and taken into account, but it's also important to counter attempts to misuse them. Blaming the west is a vintage excuse used by Arab dictators to distract from their own failings. It's also a central plank of the Islamist propaganda narrative. Islamist activists in Britain, for example, are urged to "continue linking 'extremism' and incidents like 7/7 and Woolwich to foreign policy".
 

Corbyn and religion

Alongside his republicanism, Corbyn is said to be an agnostic, or at least non-religious. But he does have a soft spot for religion. Interviewed by the Christian magazine, Third Way, he says:

"I'm not anti-religious at all. Not at all. And I probably go to more religious services than most people who are very strong believers. I go to churches, I go to mosques, I go to temples, I go to synagogues. I find religion very interesting. I find the power of faith very interesting. 

"I have friends who are very strongly atheist and wouldn't have anything to do with any faith; but I take a much more relaxed view of it. I think the faith community offers and does a great deal for people. There doesn't have to be wars about religion, there has to be honesty about religion. We have much more in common than separates us."

This sounds very nice and would probably be well-received in the multi-faith constituency he represents in London but it doesn't inspire much confidence in his ability to deal with religious supremacists like ISIS and others – including Middle Eastern governments – who claim to have the only true faith and impose it on all their citizens.

Asked by Middle East Eye how he would make British people safer from the threat of terrorism, Corbyn says the answer lies in changing foreign policy and recognising "diversity of aspirations":

"We make ourselves safer by not being part of US foreign policy at every single turn. We make ourselves safer by saying that we understand the diversity of faith and the diversity of aspirations around the world and also become a force for human rights rather than a force for military interventions. I think that would make us safer."

Somehow, I don't see that giving ISIS much pause for thought.