Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of “cowardice” for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro’s ouster, declaring that “we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.”
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was “complicated,” adding that it was “for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken.”
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that “it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal.”
“It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious,” Corbyn wrote. “It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high.”
“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States.”
The UK, according to the government’s foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the “work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US.”
Corbyn argued that the government’s approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States,” Corbyn wrote. “Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law.”
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
If you know it’s superficial, why did you say it?
Just because it’s superficial doesn’t mean it’s not important, many others will think the exact same thing, will not take him seriously and won’t vote for him.
That’s kind of a problem for a politician who wants people to listen and vote.
“I’m not superficial, I’m just speaking for other superficial people.”
This is what you said (emphasis added by me). Nothing about other people.
Don’t do this, have the courage of your convictions and stand by the things you say.
You can also just say that it was a superficial comment you shouldn’t have made.
The fact that I recognise it’s superficial is irrelevant, I do have a list of reasons why I don’t like Corbyn as a politician, and his political stances I disagree with.
At some point though I was less politically informed and his presentation probably made me less likely to imagine him leading the country.
Are you saying that makes me a bad person? If so I’ve got really bad news for you; everyone has unconscious biases, the people that recognise them are in the minority.
Maybe you should have brought those up instead.
Seems like the past tense here is not warranted, based on your original comment.
I wouldn’t make a childish black and white judgement like that based on this one small interaction.
When you recognize them, you’re meant to try to stop acting on them, which makes those biases go away. You don’t get credit for recognizing it’s bad and doing it anyway, if anything you get negative credit.
In what way did I act on my bias exactly?
At no point did you mention this “oh no it’s hard FOR OTHER PEOPLE to imagine it” cop-out until after you were called out for it. Also, you said the following in a different comment.
You knew it was superficial to judge him based on how he looks and you chose to do it anyway. You then acted as though the existence of bias in other people excused you knowingly indulging your own bias.
I think you’re reading too much int to this, I’m allowed to think someone’s decisions are bad and use that as a reason (or contributing reason) to form opinions about them.
You’re the one who said “I know it’s superficial” and then carried on being superficial on purpose. I’m not reading into this, I’m just reading.
You’re allowed to do whatever you want, but if you’re going to be superficial by your own reckoning you shouldn’t try to avoid taking ownership of that when people dislike it.