Now posts ↓

Sunday, 24 March 2019

Labour's Kremlin friendly foreign policy

Buy Corbyn, get Milne tweet by me 1 Dec 2015

It was just a line, from remarks in the House of Commons, but it spoke volumes about what a Corbyn foreign policy would look like.

The Leader of the Opposition, responding to the Prime Minister on a meeting with European leaders about the Russian attack on the Ukrainian Navy in November, called for 'both sides to show restraint and de-escalate'. So far so familiar but as his hapless Shadow Foreign Minister Khalid Mahmood had done earlier – so we know it's not just a typo – Corbyn went further and attributed the 'both-side'ing to NATO. The defence organisation had said, according to Corbyn, that 'we need both sides to show restraint and de-escalate'.

Only NATO had not said this. The Guardian had lifted the 'both sides' comment by a NATO spokesperson out of context. Labour repeated it. Labour hadn't bothered to check or wonder about the lack of strong pushback from the Ukrainians, and others, if NATO had indeed made such a statement. What does it say that not a single person in the chain who would have read Corbyn's speech before it was delivered had any sense that NATO could not possibly have made such a statement?

The false statement about NATO went unremarked, even by Corbyn's Commons adversaries, familiar with his previous 'both sides' remarks, or those about Russia being 'provoked' by NATO 'expanding to Russia's borders'. Though his opponents may be less familiar with Corbyn's theory that Putin invaded Crimea because the Russian 'military-industrial complex' forced him to do it. Or alternately Corbyn's view that the war in Ukraine is about the arms manufacturers who really run NATO wanting a hi-tech war with Russia.

What I'm saying is, I can understand why elements of Corbyn's statement about Russia might have flown over people's heads but also why some unkind souls have taken to calling him 'Magic Grandpa'. There are weeds here, some of which I will be clambering through.

The Prime Minister had told the Commons that the European leaders' meeting decided to roll over sanctions against Russia. That was something Corbyn chose not to comment on, despite his previously stated aversion to sanctions on Russia. Nobody pressed him on that either, though, again, I can see why.

The thing is, Corbyn 'misspeaking' about NATO is not just another 'gotcha' or 'Corbyn being Corbyn' moment - the way that such incidents are usually viewed. It's yet another example of what is happening in plain sight but isn't, in my view, being understood or examined properly; namely, that Labour is quietly laying out a foreign policy that benefits the Kremlin.

The Dawn Sturgess problem


Dawn Sturgess

Just over a year ago, March 2018, Russia carried out a chemical weapon attack on UK soil, in Salisbury, Wiltshire. The attack was on a former Russian agent but the sole fatality was an English-woman, Dawn Sturgess. Partner Charlie Rowley had picked up a perfume bottle laced with the weapon. He offered it to her and it killed her, something he now has to live with alongside the physical damage done to him and all those who survived, including a policeman.

Jeremy Corbyn did not explicitly allow that the Kremlin carried out the Salisbury attack until his speech at the October 2018 Labour Party Conference. A few weeks earlier, when the UK government released a damning package of evidence that nailed the Kremlin he was still hedging his bets:
'There is clear evidence Russia has a case to answer and it has failed to do so and therefore we can draw no other conclusion that Russia has a direct or indirect responsibility.'
'Indirect responsibility' means that the weapon used in Salisbury – Novichok – that ended up killing a British citizen, somehow found its way to another actor and Russia was only 'responsible' because they lost the Novichok. Whoops.

This theory was the same one advanced by Labour Spokesperson Seumas Milne to the Commons Lobby journalists months earlier, right after the Skripals were hospitalised. Its sheer outrageousness led one wire service to break with convention and name Milne. Correctly, in my view, as people have a right to know the context – to know who is saying this. The Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow Defence Secretary then went on the 'mainstream media' to pretend that what Milne had just said was meaningless. But then 'Corbyn' repeated the theory in an authored comment piece in The Guardian.

An example of the memes about Salisbury which circulated widely on Corbyn supporting social media
It was one of 29 theories that the Kremlin, Kremlin-controlled media or Russian diplomats put forward. And it was one of the first theories they advanced, blaming Ukraine as the other actor; then the Czech Republic; Sweden; and finally the UK itself.

It was always a ludicrous theory with dubious sources. When 28 countries joined the UK in expelling Russian diplomats in April (including neutral Ireland and supposedly pro-Kremlin Hungary) The Economist's defence editor Shashank Joshi explained the reasons for their certainty:
The UK’s case is built on three other interlocking pieces of evidence.
First is the use of a military-grade nerve agent, originally developed by Moscow. That, as the Porton Down chief emphasised, is 'only within the capabilities of a state actor'.
Second, and beyond Porton Down’s remit, is evidence based on secret intelligence that Russia has manufactured and stockpiled small quantities of Novichok within the past decade, and investigated its use for assassination.
Third is the assessment, also informed by intelligence, that Russia has an active program of state-backed assassinations, views defectors as legitimate targets, and has passed laws to enable such action.
All of this constitutes evidence, some of which can be confirmed by independent third parties, such as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at the UK’s invitation. (Regrettably, Russia itself has openly undermined the OPCW’s work in Syria, and has pre-emptively dismissed its work in Salisbury). Other elements, based on human sources or signals intelligence, cannot.
But the unprecedented international rejoinder to Russia – the largest collective expulsion of intelligence officers in history – demonstrates the strength of British claims. EU diplomats noted that Britain’s briefings, “including much that is not in the public domain”, were “extremely convincing” on Russian responsibility. It is reported that the UK divulged “unprecedented levels of intelligence”.
Labour had been briefed throughout on the progress of the Salisbury investigation. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott had full security briefings. Prior to those Commons comments in September the Head of MI5 had reportedly offered a personal briefing to Corbyn and Milne, which they refused.

russian tourists deny salisbury attack @Pixieribs
The idea that they 'just waited for the evidence' is a tidy myth. They were too busy putting up other lines of argument, such as Corbyn's demand that Russia receive a sample of the substance so Moscow could 'say categorically' if it was behind the attack.

After that mass expulsion of diplomats in April Corbyn said:
'If we are going to make a very, very clear assertion like that we have got to have the absolute evidence to do it.'
But they knew well before September that the evidence was in. The reality is that they gave up obfuscating only when it no longer became a defensible position and the whole thing became a massive joke.

Milne did brief the Lobby last September that it was definitely the Kremlin wot dunnit, but it was obvious to those closely following the process that this was solely because the British state had painted him, Seumas Milne, into a corner. And not for the first time. I've been told that when the Inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko came out in 2016 which effectively blamed Vladimir Putin, Milne had to be talked down from putting out a response which questioned the verdict.

No, the default position is to defend or make excuses for Russia. And the British people notice. Corbyn's personal ratings markedly dropped in April 2018 and have plummeted since. Some of this is to do with Brexit but some of it is also Salisbury and Russia's murder of Dawn Sturgess.

The promoting Russian propaganda problem

 RT UK ‏Verified account @RTUKnews 12 Sep 2018  'These are the heroes @EmilyThornberry smeared in @UKParliament today. She's a disgrace' 7 replies 11 retweets 13 likes RT UK ‏Verified account @RTUKnews 11 Sep 2018  .@EmilyThornberry tweeted; "The government must ensure the reports are independently verified and that @UKParliament has given its approval"

The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, is not from Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party, but she has every interest in making like she is. The favourite of the bookies to succeed Corbyn, she's made a series of statements, such as this crass one about Corbyn and antisemitism, that play to the sensibilities of his most ardent supporters. Among them are a couple I'm going to highlight, which have perhaps coincidentally received an enthusiastic thumbs-up from the Kremlin's disinfo machine.

Thornberry promoted a conspiracist campaign led in the UK by Chris Williamson MP, furthered with the help of people like the notorious Kremlinophile American writer Max Blumenthal, about an organisation called the Integrity Initiative.

Thornberry's claim was that Integrity Initiative was set up to 'attack Corbyn'. It was based on three tweets by the Initiative to its 2000 followers – one of which was only retweeted because I did it. The claims were ludicrous but they would have pleased the conspiracist wing of Labour headed by Williamson, whose outlets include Novara Media, The Canary & The Sqwawkbox as well as large social media accounts such as Rachael Swindon. Although you could argue that Thornberry's comments in the Commons were normal knockabout politics – that was certainly how the Lobby seemed to receive them, including her nod to countering Russian disinformation – they did not suggest how Labour would do so better than the government. Nor did they – and this is what really showed up the reality of what she was doing – pick up on the many criticisms of the Initiative from those actively engaged in countering Russian disinfo. Instead they played to the crowd.

The campaign against the Initiative is based on an obvious attack by Russia which aims to establish a counter, 'I'm rubber you're glue', narrative that it's actually the West that's promoting disinformation. The subject of the attack is an organisation funded by government precisely to counter Russian disinformation. Something which a Labour government would supposedly support, surely?

Those central to the online promotion of the 'conspiracy' narrative, most of whom are also coincidentally truthers on Syria and on Salisbury, said that their real objection was that Integrity Initiative had 'contributed to narrowing the range of public discourse so as to marginalize reality-based evaluation of policy options for relations with Russia and evidence-based assessment of events in which Russian involvement is alleged.' In other words, 'why isn't Craig Murray on BBC Newsnight!'

The 'scandal' has been heavily promoted by Kremlin media and Russian diplomats. It's also circulated by people like Craig Murray, who promoted conspiracies about the Salisbury attack. It's still going.** None of this is a coincidence and it speaks volumes about Labour that Thornberry would lend weight to it.

Example two. Earlier Thornberry promotes another major Russian propaganda favourite.

In a statement about Syria to Parliament last September Thornberry said:
'Relying on so-called open-source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative.'
Yet it is Syrian rescue workers, medics, human rights activists, and journalists - not terrorists - who have documented Assad regime atrocities, often at great personal risk. As Syria Solidarity UK pointed out.:
Today Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary @EmilyThornberry smeared them all as terrorists: “so-called open source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups”
Among those smeared by Thornberry were the same White Helmets Syrian rescue workers who had been championed by the murdered Labour MP Jo Cox.

@JuliaDavisNews  Not earth-shattering to most, but today’s #Russia state TV program 60 Minutes discussed info-wars in decent detail, incl convincing influencers, celebrities & Western populace of Russia’s talking points, ultimately leading to election of politicians w/ views beneficial to Russia.Bellingcat, the widely respected organisation who are most famous for using open source intelligence to name the Russian FSB attackers of Salisbury, offered to show Thornberry why 'it is one of the most powerful tools we have for investigating conflicts and abuses of power.' They didn't get a response.

As the writer Oz Katerji explained:
'Thornberry’s statement sends the message that our eyes and our ears are not to be trusted. That witnesses are not to be trusted. Putin’s propaganda has succeeded beyond expectations, to the extent that the shadow foreign secretary is putting out an official statement stating that the NGOs, medics, journalists, and human rights activists responsible for documenting the vast majority of open-source evidence are terrorists and are not to be trusted The Kremlin has weaponised doubt, and by doing so it dehumanises the victims by treating them with contempt and suspicion, and it leads to the paralyses of any political, diplomatic or military response to the crisis Labour’s foreign policy has a deep and troubling Russian propaganda problem.'
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt reportedly had to spell out to Donald Trump that in Syria it's the White Helmets that are the good guys, as 45 had 'heard otherwise'. In other words, the massive Russian infowar attack on Syrian civil rescuers had reached Trump. What do you think Emily Thornberry would have told 45 in this scenario?

The Milne and Murray problem

Acres of words have been printed about Seumas Milne, yet still no audio of his alleged "comedy Arabic accent" :(

I don't intend to add to all that save to point out one nugget, from winter 2015, missed at the time, which I think captures what we've known – oh boy have we known – since the very beginning. Namely that electing Corbyn, followed by Milne's subsequent appointment as Labour's Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, meant that the Stop The War Coalition (STWC) and their cheerleaders were now running the Labour Party, particularly its foreign policy.

Back then folks were busy establishing what's since become a veritable cottage industry of ploughing through the rich seam of history, recent and ancient, by, about or linked to Corbyn. Some of them went through the STWC archives. They found pieces such as an opus by Matt Carr which compared the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War to ISIS. Panic ensued, the gentlefolk of STWC were papped at the 2015 Xmas do and website cleansing followed (first of STWC's then of Corbyn's own website).

Here's what I wrote at the time:
An anonymous spokesperson for the Labour Party was quoted in several media articles saying that the piece "had been taken down because it did not reflect the organisation’s [STWC] views." That person then went on to defend STWC and claim that during the group's existence they had "repeatedly called it right."

Paul Waugh quoted a source, not named as such but presumably the same Labour one, saying about the Carr post: "This is the second time this has happened, it won't be happening again." (The 'first' time was their also taken down response to the Paris attacks that the French were “reaping the whirlwind of western support for extremist violence.”)

How the heck would that Labour source know that? STWC is not an affiliate of the party, by what possible method could the party enforce its will and hence make that promise?
seumas milne demonisation russiaJust before those frantic website deletions and promise making about what STWC would do Milne, a prominent ally of STWC working for a party leader who used to chair STWC, had contradicted a statement by then Labour Foreign Affairs Shadow Minister Catherine West about Labour consulting with Syrians (meaning British-Syrians opposed to Assad).

Milne said that yes, of course we will be consulting outside the party about Syria - with the STWC.

A year after bigging up STWC, in October 2016, as public concern about the plight of civilians in Syria mounted, Milne declared that “the focus on Russian atrocities or Syrian army atrocities I think sometimes diverts attention from other atrocities that are taking place.” That's typical arch sophist Milne as its technically true but that's not why he said it, especially not when he said it. He was deflecting attention from Russia. Again.

To quote the wonderful @DarthPutinKGB:
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, denies it’s a duck, demands you prove it's a duck, accuses you of being a duck, says your dog is a duck, that your friend's cat is a duck and that all 3 aforementioned 'ducks' are Russophobic ducks, it’s a Kremlin duck
My main point though is about another aspect to the in-plain-sight nature of what's going on, with both Milne and Andrew Murray and others.

Let's look at Murray, who was once defended with claims that he was a marginal figure. Remember that?

In 2014, with a promotional assist from STWC, he established a group called Solidarity with the Anti-fascist Resistance in Ukraine (SARU). SARU supported the so-called 'People's Republics' in Eastern Ukraine, where open fascists operated unmolested, homosexuality was at that time illegal, child soldiers were deployed and aid agencies banned for ideological reasons. Whatayaknow  but the 'antifascist' communist nirvanas sold by Murray turned out to be totally, provably controlled by Russia.

Euromaidan activists helping rescue people from fire at Trade Union House in Odessa, May 2 2014. Pic
Murray promoted the 'Odessa Massacre' conspiracism, essentially that Ukrainian Eurofascists had murdered 44 people and the BBC won't tell you about it, over which Russia ran a massive international disinformation campaign. They toured an exhibition about it around the EU. He put the Kremlin's then prime propaganda theme on the cover of his book. And he defended Moscow from accusations that they were responsible for shooting down the Malaysian airliner MH17 over his 'People's Republics'. Murray's little group went on to smear the National Union of Mineworkers (yes, that NUM, this actually happened) as being 'pro-fascist' because of their solidarity work with their mining comrades in Ukraine.

Not only was Murray busy promoting Russian talking points he also promoted, despite warnings from the small Ukrainian left and some British lefties, a supposed Ukrainian leftist group called Borotba. The Morning Star hailed them as part of the “left-wing forces” fighting back against “the neo-Nazi juggernaut” and the “fascist-coup-installed President Poroshenko”. Whatayaknow but Borotba turned out to be fake communists working for Vladislav Surkov, aka the 'gray cardinal', aka 'Putin’s Rasputin', as Peter Pomerantsev called him.

A fake left party set up specifically to fool the rubes, and it worked.

Then there was the time he defended a far-right, Kremlin funded academic called Boris Kagarlitsky who STWC had given a platform to. Because he told them things they wanted to hear.  In 2016 this man who Murray had called a "Russian socialist" backed Donald Trump.

Then there's this tweet by Andrew Murray to Roman Noviskov, one of the former leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) in occupied Ukraine.

Murray has deleted his tweet.

Siri, define 'useful idiot'.

Remember Conservative Friends of Russia? It was a Russian influence operation a decade ago targeting the Tory Party that was exposed by reporting that led to the lobby group being closed down. George Osborne's involvement almost ended up losing him his job.

Russian influence operations in the UK are not just aimed at Tories. Obviously. Why would they be? From their perspective Corbyn could conceivably be in Number 10. Labour is currently providing Russia with rich potential ground in which to work. Of course it is. Murray and Milne demonstrably bring their milkshake to the yard whenever Moscow plays its music. There are numerous examples of how Russia's done it elsewhere, how it's got the left to do its bidding, and never mind that - cough - recent example closer to home. The idea that the UK Labour Party is somehow exempt is fanciful.

Corbyn told a Czechoslovakian 'diplomat' that he'd happily point out those in his circle who might be talking to MI5. Allegedly.

I know how even raising this 'rich potential ground', that a Kremlin friendly Labour foreign policy might be of active interest to the Kremlin, plays out. After all we live in a world where supposed Israeli influence on the UK Labour party is a thing and pretty damn likely Russian influence isn't even spoken of.

The Nicaragua and Venezuela problem


Venezuela and Nicaragua is not so much about Russia, though what Labour says or rather does not say about those two countries, whatayaknow, alarmingly echoes Russia. It's more about what I wrote about in 2017, 'what Venezuela tells us about Labour Party foreign policy', a piece that somehow managed to induce a word salad response from the London Venezuelan Embassy. That actually happened.

I explained how Labour was charting a policy course independent of what Latin American social democrats, Labour's supposed sister parties, were saying. For example how the statement put out in August 2017 by Shadow Foreign Minister Liz McInnes, presumably Milne's handiwork, did not question the legitimacy of Maduro's new replacement Constituent Assembly for Venezuela's opposition controlled Parliament, the National Assembly. A very basic division between Labour and social democrats, globally. This point was different to what, especially in August 2017, both the media and Corbyn's opponents were banging on about. They didn't examine Labour's official statements or what they said in Parliament, or even call for Corbyn to do something like ask Maduro to admit humanitarian aid,. They just wanted Corbyn to say 'I woz wrong'. They collectively missed what was actually happening.

Thornberry with Arreaza (centre)
Right after that, in November, Emily Thornberry had a meeting with the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza. She didn't promote it. Interesting choice. I only found out because Chavista accounts in Venezuela were tweeting it.

Last month disputatious barrister Thornberry told Parliament that the real issue on Venezuela was Tory hypocrisy over Honduras. What she did not say in Parliament, nor in a speech in Belfast, was more important. She did not say that Labour supported the EU initiative on Venezuela created with the support of Latin American countries including Uruguay and Ecuador (both run by socialists). This aims to create the conditions for truly free and fair elections, it is not about false 'dialogue'. Thornberry, echoing the Morning Star and the letter to The Guardian signed by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary DianeAbbott, nevertheless called for 'dialogue', presumably conjured up by the new hope, Mexico's AMLO. Only there has been nothing from any efforts by Mexico, or Bolivia for that matter. Zip, nada. Raising it is chaff based on no realistic, expert assessment of the situation. It is what the international Maduro defence team, Russia playing in right, do: talk meaningless words about 'dialogue'. Failing to even mention the EU on Venezuela is not just an error, it's a major policy alignment.

Thornberry's Deputy Liz McInnes followed this up with a speech to Parliament repeating Emily's main themes, minus Honduras but plus de Zayas.

The Venezuelan economy has been cripped by US sanctions, and the UN rapporteur said that UN sanctions are illegal and could amount to a war crime any intervention from the US could precipitate a civil war & lead to a humanitarian catastrophe @DerbyChrisW
de Zayas is the former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order. McInnes told the Commons that this 'UN expert' had called sanctions on Venezuela a 'war crime', a statement which drew an audible response. de Zayas and his 'war crimes' claim is a major theme of Chris Williamson's routine, whose Commons outing on Venezuela featuring de Zayas has been heavily promoted by Corbynite social media in marked contrast to Thornberry's effort in the very same Parliamentary session. Williamson appeared on TV numerous times spouting falsehoods about Venezuela. He's off the TV now because the party finally rebuked him, which kinda goes to show that they could have told him to stop earlier but chose not to.

The visit by 'UN expert' de Zayas to Caracas, on the basis on which he made his 'war crime' pronouncement, was the only one until this month that the Maduro regime had let in. Funny, that. de Zayas never visited any hospitals and instead put pictures, later deleted, on social media supposedly showing plenty, decrying the 'MSM narrative' of famine, and then held a press conference with the regime.

Contrast that with what's happening now to the technical mission sent by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, former socialist Chilean President Michele Bachelet:
This statement comes as the technical mission sent by the High Commissioner continues its work in the country since earlier this month, which has been marked by official efforts to limit access and cosmetically minimizing the problems, like the case of their visit to the Barquisimeto’s main hospital.

Bachelet addressed this issue right from the start: “It’s important that the team have completely unhindered access, with no reprisals against any person who has met, or sought to meet, with them.“
de Zayas is a Holocaust denier and is a 'huge fan' of the German far-right party the AfD. He's reportedly worn blackface. He's currently saying that Venezuela's electricity blackouts are because of the gringos.

He's also being mentioned in a Parliamentary statement by the Labour Party.

Back in December Corbyn went to AMLO's inauguration in Mexico City and he was in heaven. He gave an interview, published by a left-wing Mexican newspaper, to someone I'm familiar with from Twitter interactions, Matt Kennard, someone whose TL is full of Charles Shoebridge, Craig Murray, Assange, and Greenwald.

Corbyn and Milne meet Evo Morales
A couple of things from the interview. There's no mention of Venezuela, this is pre-Guaido, when the Chavez supporting left's omerta still held, but much praise for President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who both Corbyn and Milne met with in Mexico - here's a picture of Milne filming the encounter.

Morales has never been touted by the Western left in the way that Chavez was, possibly because his 'socialism' was way too 'neoliberal'. It's always amused me how lefties grasping to defend Bolivarian socialism almost never mention Bolivia.

But Morales has taken a distinct turn against democracy in order to extend his rule. This appears not to bother Corbyn. Not in the slightest.

Somewhere else which Corbyn failed to mention to Kennard is Nicaragua. The country which Corbyn spoke about in the UK Parliament 210 times and has had not much to say about of late. One of the reasons for the rebellion in Nicaragua that started last April was austerity measures. Pensioners protested and pensioners got beaten for protesting. Then the people marched with the pensioners. Remember that when you hear people on the left talking about 'regime change'. People like Shadow Minister Dan Carden.

But mostly there's the silence. A couple of times I've heard Thornberry speak in Parliament and had occasion to yell 'but what about Nicaragua?!' as it somehow fails to elicit a mention in her roll call of countries of concern. Again.

This is policy happening here, in plain sight. How would a Corbyn government vote in the UN on Nicaragua? Alongside Russia?

We can make an informed guess because of the detail both of what's said and what isn't said. What's done and, as Chris Leslie MP said in Parliament, what's not done:
What can we do to influence and put pressure on the regime? Can we get the Russian Administration to do more, or the Chinese or the Cubans? Are there individuals who have a close relationship with Maduro, perhaps even the leader of the Labour party, who could at this stage pick up the telephone and implore him—beg him—to stop this appalling approach and to leave government immediately?
Francisco Toro makes much the same point about the power of criticism of Maduro coming from the left, citing this weeks' denunciation of Maduro by Michele Bachelet.
When criticism comes from the left, though, it’s different. It’s far harder for the regime to deny and obfuscate the words of Bachelet than those of Mike Pompeo. When someone with the democratic and leftist credentials of Bachelet speaks up against the now obvious human rights disaster unfolding in Venezuela, it matters. It matters to the regime, which is no longer able to hide behind generic allegations of a far-right conspiracy against it.
What this silence, absent issues and apparent alignment amounts to is policy, a distinct policy which places Labour alongside the remains of Podemos, Mélenchon and Syriza. Not alongside its sister social democrat parties in Spain or Portugal, or actually those in Venezuela itself for that matter. A clear signal that Labour in power would not be Scandi but would be far more aligned to Chris Williamson than whatever waffle it might write in any manifesto.

Here's a chaser on Thornberry's rote remarks about Maduro and human rights. Don't laugh.
A senior [Labour] source believes Thornberry is not seen as a “team player” and this was “exacerbated” by her comments on Venezuela.
And a footnote. This rebuttal of criticism from the Hands Off Venezuela! crowd, who Labour are apparently on the side of, by the widely respected progressive organisation the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is excellent.
We believe that flattening out Venezuela’s complex reality and instrumentalizing it as a chess piece in a political struggle against the Trump administration risks dehumanizing Venezuelans and desensitizing everyone to their situation.

Buy Corbyn, get Milne


Putin heart Brexit
Pic from 23 March People's Vote March by Carl Gardner
There's a reason why I haven't put a question mark after my title for this post. Because it's a statement of fact. I've not gone into Brexit and Labour's chimeric, Lexiteering, don't mention Russia behaviour. Nor how Thornberry somehow managed to promote Russia's Syria 'peace initiative' over the UN's before the Russians did. Nor the role of Russia in promoting antisemitism. Nor how the Corbyn team almost signed a Kremlin fan who makes George Galloway look tame but were scared off after pix surfaced of him repeatedly meeting Corbyn. I'm well aware I'm scraping the surface.

For some, such as those of us on the cheese and biscuit circuit, none of what I've written would come as much of a surprise. Heck, Chris Bryant reportedly once refused to become Shadow Defence Secretary over Corbyn’s stance on Russia. Remember that? People are well aware and working inside, folks! Don't panic! Milne's just one person!

When I raised issues with Corbyn and Ukraine in 2015 I got told not to worry, that McDonnell would sort it out. True story. This seems to be what many Corbynites still think about Labour foreign policy, it'll get sorted. But here's the thing, I just saw James Bloodworth refer to Labour having "a tepid social democratic agenda (see Labour’s 2017 manifesto)." Now I'm Twitter mates with James (for now) but I think him typing that is reflective of how much of what I call Tweetminster thinks, that Labour policy is actually pretty milquetoast. That the Russian stuff is just joke-worthy.

A few months back Ukraine announced that they would deny Andrew Murray a visa. They so had cause but on the BBC veteran comedy show Mock The Week the joke which channeled the zeitgeist was the fact that Murray had never visited Ukraine but they'd banned him! The joke was on Ukraine, not Labour. This followed all those jokes about Corbyn and the Czech spy and some stuff about a hat.

It suits some people to keep it as a joke and there seems to be an extreme reluctance to call a cigar/duck a cigar/duck.

But people putting 'Labour' into their trolley surely have a right to know they are buying a Kremlin duck. And do they?

Multiply and ochestrate this sort of thing times many thousands across social media once Labour's in actual power.
To all those now about to tweet 'but austerity', the people now running Labour have spent most of their lives focused on foreign policy. Especially those like Milne and Murray, who I know are widely despised on the left. Think on. I've joked about this but I can easily picture a very happy Milne swanning around the UN Security Council happily wielding his new power. I can also picture the effect of the alt-left and Corbynite social media policing a Corbyn led government's foreign policy. And I can also picture, in the shadows, the Kremlin itself, working away.

One of the first things any possible Corbyn government would do, from the evidence of the last four years, is realign the UK. Think of the Security Council votes on Venezuela or Crimea. Think of how our allies would react. Would people be voting for that? My sense is that the combined effect of Milne's sophistry and MSM bleurgh and opponents incompetence would make people think, if they thought anything, that they're voting for 'no more wars', not voting for being in Putin's pocket. Very quickly, an actual Corbyn government under the spotlight would be dominated by foreign policy. It just would. And some would love it. Surely all the Lexiteering has alerted people that maybe there are other priorities than austerity for some people? You'd think.

And I can practically hear the critics already, who will huff about All Those Times bad things were said from the top of the party about Russia. This is the coming rebuttal. I can sense it coming in my water.

Some of them will cry 'Magnitsky Act!', but oh that's such a good example that just ends up underlining my point further. It wasn't a front bench operation, it was backbench 'melt' Labour MPs operating cross party who drove its passage. Same as with the passage of controls on offshore banking in British overseas territories, which was led by Margaret Hodge. You can guess how much PR Labour and their social media A team gave Hodge for that. None of the Russian money connected issues have ever been a Labour PR priority save when they can be turned into either 'Labour's Magnitsky Act' or 'Russian Tory party donations' deflections, as happened (as I pointed out above) over Salisbury and will likely be the reaction of some to this piece.

In January I had an interesting interaction with Marcus Barnett, international officer of Young Labour and a Morning Star columnist. It was about Venezuela and those social democrats I mentioned earlier. Barnett said that he approved of "the NEC's [the Labour Party national executive body] current stance towards reviewing our relationship with non-SI [Socialist International] parties across the world, such as Podemos." (Podemos is the major Spanish leftist party.)

I responded:
Pleased to see you stating that Labour should align with Podemos, which means different EU Parl Group and all that means. Big proposal that, Marcus.
Barnett's thinking is the logical outcome for 'Europes biggest party', the jingoistic slogan Corbynite Labour quickly birthed back in 2016 that does a lot of bad things, including disappearing supposedly sister European parties with far bigger per capita memberships, and is still going, in one tweaked form or another. That outcome which Barnett wants and seems to have got is a UK Labour Party fundamentally realigned on foreign policy with consequences very few are even considering. But we live in a First-Past-The-Post system where a UK Podemos would normally not be an electoral winner. Anywhere else and a Podemos or a Syriza or a Die Linke would have to stand alongside a social democrat party asking for votes.

Here's the deal. We deserve to be better informed on actual Labour foreign policy, a, it's a fact, Kremlin friendly foreign policy, before we're asked to vote for it. I don't think people are informed, at all, though Salisbury certainly has made them wide open to considering the possibility. They're just not. I can see why - it's boring, no one cares, look at who's talking about it, that's a reach - but the idea that it's of no consequence is just plain wrong.

As Gordon Brown put it:
I have to say that if our [Labour's] global alliances are going to be alliances with Hezbollah and Hamas and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, there is absolutely no chance of building a world-wide alliance that can deal with poverty and inequality and climate change and financial instability, and we’ve got to face up to that fact.
Only in Brexit Britain would we end up possibly electing a UK Podemos called 'Labour' and then cry afterwards that this wasn't what we voted for. But that's exactly where we're heading.



** Disclosure: I am named in Integrity Initiative docs! And I am quote ready.

See also: 

Many thanks to Susan Greenberg for her editing help. And for funding from George Soros and the international Zionist conspiracy 👍

Sunday, 4 March 2018

A few words on Munroe Bergdorf and Labour

Last November there was a stoush about a young guy called Josh Rivers. You may remember.

He was the first black man to be appointed Editor of the magazine Gay Times. But he had a past on Twitter and Patrick Strudwick at Buzzfeed had either found it or someone had pointed Strudwick at it. He had found tweets that were horrific, just the worst. Here's one of them.

Now Strudwick read that tweet one way but I read that another, as Rivers seeing whatever TV show or film he's talking about as promoting a stereotype. Maybe I looked at it that way because I went and looked at the sort of stuff that Rivers was tweeting at this time in 2011.

I've underlined his raging sexism.

Having looked at his old Twitter and then at his most recent Twitter what I saw was a working class black gay London lad, with an activist single mother, who was learning the refined ways of Diversityville. The codes, the lingo, the genuflections. That was all there in his recent Twitter. And for whatever reason someone hated him enough to go trawl through his history.

(Rivers has deleted his Twitter account so it's not now possible to go look.)

Rivers was trashed across all media, even Radio Four did him in. Buzzfeed got their man and now it's immortalised forever on Wikipedia.

The pile on was compete. All his friends abandoned him, nobody spoke in his defence and to my shame I was one of those who said little.

This was a rare comment defending Rivers that was made at that time, one I have a lot of sympathy with.

Both Rivers and today's outrage-du-jour Munroe Bergdorf have said things on Twitter which they later publicly regretted. I have said things I regretted. I bet you, the reader, have too. Yet we seem to have all gone along with a culture where some people are selected to be hung out to dry, to be firmly excluded from the group, for things we know we might have either also done or which could be painted as horrible by a determined adversary. That's not really new but perhaps what is is the sheer amount of piety and righteousness it gets wrapped up in. If there is a line to be crossed that line is dependent on who you are and who's in your team.

Which leads me to this ...

The obvious point

The obvious point is that Rivers got completely different treatment to what we're seeing now with Munroe Bergdorf. 

The other obvious point is that there's a reason why we're even talking about Bergdorf, why she's a thing and why she's defended when Rivers wasn't, and it is linked to what happened to Rivers .

It's the same crowd that generated both of them as stories.

Bergdorf is a thing because Labour's Dawn Butler MP took it upon herself to appoint an 'LGBT Advisory Group'. Hence the photo op with Corbyn. 

Bergdorf's appointment to that group sucked all the air out of the room so there was little left for either why Butler had done this - was it all her idea or her staff's or who came up with this?  - or who were these other people in this group? And how on earth had she not spoken to Labour LGBT, the party's affiliated, representative, long-standing, democratic (you get the picture) LGBT group?

When Labour LGBT sounded off about what Butler had done she quickly apologised and made Labour LGBT the 'secretariat' (no idea either what that means) to this Advisory Group and their complaints stopped. 

Labour lovin' entrepreneurs

Butler's group appears to have been the idea of Linda Riley and Anthony Watson. Riley has enough history for a determined, Strudwick-like, journalist to get their teeth into. This is Watson.

'Lead LGBT Advisor to UK Labour'? Really?

I don't see either Riley or Watson having their histories investigated. (Mind you, Watson's Twitter TL is a deadend, folks. It strongly reminded me of the characters Fluffy and Uranus from the 90s cartoon Duckman. Not a hair out of place.)

What I do see is this same crowd of professional 'diversity champions' all failing to apply the 'standards' they applied to Rivers to their pick for the in-crowd - Bergdorf.

And the sole reason we're even aware of Bergdorf's existence is that this crowd got the ear of Dawn Butler and deliberately snubbed LGBT Labour in order to promote themselves. (They're 'entrepreneurs', remember. Bergdorf's Twitter profile is links to her management and her press contact.)

Helen Lewis made the point today that Bergdorf is in there, in this Advisory Group, just because of her identity but I think she's there because Butler got captured by this professional 'diversity' crowd and what Bergdorf really adds for these people is a little stardust. Both Riley and Watson are Directors of GLAAD, the Hollywood focused diversity organisation whose brand is all about leveraging stardust for the cause. 

The story should be why we're even talking about Bergdorf, but that's not the story.

La Strudwick

Final word: Can I just remind you of something Patrick Strudwick wrote about Rivers?

This is directed at a black, gay working-class Londoner who Strudwick and his ilk decided to collectively take against. It is beyond patronising and yet he got away with it. In fact he's doing fine.

If you're wondering whether Strudwick has had anything to say on the Bergdorf kerfuffle - Not a peep.

Monday, 7 August 2017

Venezuela: In every way a terrible week

Tomorrow in Lima, Peru nine Latin American states (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Paraguay) plus Canada will meet with the aim of establishing a “contact group” that they hope can be the best way of pressuring Venezuela to return to democracy.

That Venezuela has left democracy trailing behind in the dust is beyond dispute but for those still with doubts this piece by Francisco Toro helpfully explained the process whereby Venezuela has arrived at this point by putting it into American terms:
Using the FBI to threaten and intimidate them, the president forces three Supreme Court justices to resign. After Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor leave, a lame-duck session of Congress rushes through the appointment of Roger Stone, Kellyanne Conway and Anthony Scaramucci to the court. The liberals kick and scream, but there’s nothing they can do. Scaramucci becomes chief justice.
It has taken the crisis to reach this point for Latin America to finally address the problem of Venezuela - because they see how it will effect them.

As Wall Street Journal reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev told Canadian public radio:
It has had a major impact. Columbia is talking about a looming refugee crisis. That's a country [with one of the] biggest refugee populations in the world itself because of decades of civil war. So this crisis has put a real strain on its limited resources already. 
The treatment of the refugees, by the way, by the region has been incredible. They have not been turned back - instead they have been made welcome.
Hundreds of Indigenous people live in abject poverty on the border of Brazil. And we're seeing them crossing into the tiny island of Trinidad that Venezuela borders by sea, trying to find food and trying to escape.
That's Commonwealth member Trinidad, which already hosts 40,000 refugees, 5% of its population. The neighbouring tiny island of Curaçao, which because it's part of, or rather one of, The Netherlands is also part of the European Union, already hosts 10,000.

The Venezuelan crisis is happening 11km from the EU.

Javier Lafuente and Carlos E. Cué in El Pais quote a Colombian Official:
There is no coordination between the Venezuelan military and the Colombians, there is absolute distrust, it is as if one spoke in Chinese and the other responded in Quechua.
"It is a chaos and a permanent anarchy," Joaquin Villalobos, the Salvadoran ex-guerrilla turned consultant for conflict resolution, told them. "In the midst of chaos, the power acquired by criminal platforms is incredible."

The move to create a 'contact group' is because the Organisation of American States, whose General Secretary is the socialist former Foreign Minister of Uruguay, has been blocked from taking collective actions because of countries like Cuba as well as Nicaragua and some Caribbean islands which rely on Venezuelan financing and Venezuelan oil. As well the Vatican has been working behind the scenes to promote the idea of a 'contact group'.

[Listen to the powerful statement by OAS General Secretary Luis Almagro]
The strategists who are trying to put together a regional agreement to corner Maduro, report Lafuente and Cué, believe that, despite the opposition of some countries like Bolivia, that a consensus is being established in which the crisis is deep, with enormous risk for all Countries, and the region can not stand still.

Says Kurmanaev:
Few countries are prepared to tolerate [Maduro's authoritarian rule] and stay quiet about it, which reduces the number of countries that might be able to mediate.
He explained that it is hoped that the Dominican Republic and Uruguay might be among the few potential Latin American countries left who could open the door for dialogue with Maduro.

Uruguay may no longer be a candidate after it agreed to Venezuela's suspension from the regional trade body Mercosur. (Though Venezuela had already lost its rights as a State Party as of last December because it had not incorporated required regulations into its legal system.)

Countries like Canada may be able to quietly exert some pressure on its neighbours to the south to push for a regional solution, he said.
I think the bigger, more powerful countries like the U.S. and Canada should focus on trying to provide incentives for the smaller countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to take a united stance — for them to say, 'Enough is enough and you have to change.'

This requires offering some sort of financial incentives, or maybe [tightening] immigration and remittances rules … It's in everyone's interest to have a stable Venezuela on their doorstep.

Although the UK has condemned the establishment of the Constituent Assembly and the sidelining of the Parliament (as have 42 other countries, including Switzerland), moves by the EU maybe made difficult because of the blocking of joint efforts by the Syriza government in Greece.

Comparing the situation to a game of Jenga with so many pieces already removed, Kurmanaev says "it's very difficult to see how it will end, but it could certainly come crashing down at any moment."


You might not know about any of this if you're a casual news consumer let alone one of the many who gets their news via social media. In the UK the past eight days has been one long shitfight between right and left over Venezuela.

This piece by Ian Dunt, repenting his past support for 'Chavismo', is very good and one of several lamenting the 'gotcha!' coverage. Writing for the New Statesman James Bloodsworth bemoaned a "point scoring exercise" and pointed out that Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn could do some practical good over getting political prisoners freed. (President Maduro is well aware of who Corbyn is and would undoubtedly take his call.)
On seemingly good terms with the government of Nicolás Maduro, Corbyn’s words may actually carry weight in Venezuela. This is a matter of some importance when the country appears to be marching toward full-blown dictatorship.
This was the point I argued in May when I wrote that Corbyn had a chance to be a Man of Peace, not just play one on TV:
When his visit to the region he professes to love was reported by Telesur at the beginning of this year Corbyn could have spoken out on Venezuela. When he spoke to the Cuban Solidarity crowd last June he could have spoken out.

He could have demanded:
  •  That the Venezuelan government rejoin the peace process
  •  That the Venezuelan government declare a food crisis
  •  That the Venezuelan government allow humanitarian aid agencies and NGOs to freely operate and to bring in aid
He could have repeated the words, practically word-for-word, of the Pope.
Mostly though what we've had is Gotcha! reporting, highlighted by a set-to setup on BBC's Newsnight between the "strongman of Corbynism" (as a Spanish newspaper described him) Chris Williamson MP and the Blairite former Minister Tom Harris.

Then we had the breaking-of-the-omerta by Owen Jones, the well known writer and man bouncing on Oprah's sofa, on Sky News' Paper Review. Goaded by the IEA's Kate Andrews that 'Corbyn should apologise!' this event was gleefully reported by the right-wing blogger Guido as where Jones finally called the Maduro regime 'authoritarian'.

But here's the thing. Jones was actually referring to a Labour Party statement, one which has had precious little analysis during this melee but which represents a truly terrible policy on Venezuela. One which concerns me as a Party member and should concern others too.

This statement was issued a week ago but not emailed to journalists or announced on Twitter.
We mourn all those who have been killed and injured in the protests leading up to this election, and we urge everyone in Venezuela, on all sides, to end the bloodshed immediately.

In particular, we urge the government of Venezuela to recognise its responsibilities to protect human rights, free speech and the rule of law. The outcome of this election cannot be treated as a mandate for a further escalation of repression, division, and violence.

President Maduro must also respond personally to the legitimate concerns of the international community about the increasingly authoritarian nature of his rule and the growing hardship facing his people.

If he believes those concerns are misplaced, it is up to him to prove them wrong, not through his words, but through his deeds.
After two days of attacks on Corbyn, including a Times Editorial, on Wednesday a social media meme was created.

This vague, who-can-disagree, policy-free waffle showed no connection to anyone or anything. It should be judged on what it did not say and whose influence it obviously did not reflect.

Take for example the strong statement issued by the Socialist International, the grouping which Labour is an observer to and which has four parties who are members in Venezuela.
Given the lack of legitimacy of the path taken by the Venezuelan government, the Socialist International, along with condemning this serious breakdown of democratic order, today reiterates its deep solidarity with every citizen who has been suffering from the consequences of the serious political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis to which the country has been subject for a long time; a crisis that is deepening and worsening the further Venezuela moves away from good governance, and respect and recognition of the institutions of democracy.
That statement, unlike Labour's, did not accept the legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly. It also did not talk about "both sides".

Labour MP Angela Smith, by contrast, has condemned the “wilful destruction of democratic structures” in Venezuela.

They go on to say:
Venezuela, which has always been an ally in the struggles for democracy and freedom in the face of past dictatorships in Latin America, does not deserve this fate.

The government of Venezuela must respect the life, liberty and rights of all of its citizens and must release immediately all political prisoners. The government should listen to those who have an opinion to contribute to democratic coexistence, beginning with those who have been duly elected to do so, the members of the National Assembly, elected in December 2015 for a tenure lasting until 2021. The government must respect and recognise the mandate given by the people to the National Assembly and the powers of this institution in line with the country’s constitutional system.
Labour does not mention political prisoners. It has not called for the release of Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma. The meme was put out after their arrest and after it was established with overwhelming evidence that the results of an election it does not condemn were rigged, the turnout inflated by at least double.

The statement gives no solidarity to those from Labour's sister parties in the region trying for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Perhaps most depressingly it does not call on the regime to do something absolutely minimal: declare a 'food crisis'. This technical requirement would immediately trigger international humanitarian aid - food and medicines - for a desperate, starving, dying population.

Instead the statement is a solipsistic, too clever by half concoction produced on the quiet and simply intended to deflect, to have something that can be waved around to say, as Jones did, 'see, we did do something'.


Jones, Williamson and many others have also defaulted to 'whataboutistry' by pointing at the UK's corrupt relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Apart from the pedestrian lack of nous shown in not, instead, pointing at Conservative support for the Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, as the former Minister Denis McShane has been saying for the past few days, this completely ignores the UK's corrupt relationship with Venezuela.

The truly astonishing levels of corruption by the 'Bolivarian bourgeoisie’ is enabled by the UK's famously lax financial regulation and our possession of tax havens like the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Read anything about the characters pouring billions into Miami real estate and the use of shell companies in the BVI will invariably come up.

And that corruption kills people as surely as a bomb sold to the Saudi armed forces does. “Malnutrition in Venezuela is a problem of corruption, not a lack of money,” Maritza Landaeta, a director of the Bengoa Foundation, a Caracas-based health and nutrition charity, told the Financial Times.

Recognition of our role here is not a failing, though, solely of left figures like Jones. Those on the right who have cited the gobsmacking wealth of Chavez' billionaire daughter also seem to be unaware of our part in that.


Nobody seems to know what will happen next though it is clear that the opposition is exhausted and divided on what to do. It is not even clear if the street protests will return to the level they have been. I was struck by this observation from a Reuters piece about the connections between Venezuela's protesters and those in Ukraine:
While Ukraine's protesters endured freezing conditions day and night, Venezuela's thin out quickly when rain starts, and they go home in the evening and enjoy balmy Caribbean weather.
The Venezuelans point out that criminal gangs make the streets dangerous at night. And with their economy in meltdown, they are often short of medicine, food and other needs, whereas the Ukrainians had a good supply line.
Apparently the 'Revolution of Dignity' or 'Maidan' in Ukraine has been inspiring Venezuealan protesters and the film Winter on Fire has been sought out and has been shown on the street, in cafes, in halls, everywhere.

There is also the possibility that the crisis could resolve itself within Venezuela, without any outside pressure.

Yesterday's supposed military insurrection, which lit up social media for a few hours, may be a nothingburger or may not be. As Guillermo Tell Aveledo points out the civilian-military alliance that runs Venezuela may fray because the military, or parts of it, thinks that that Maduro's gone too far and he has become an obstacle to their personal (read financial) best interests.

Phil Gunson, International Crisis Group's Senior Analyst for the Andes, says:
While the Constituent Assembly inevitably will alter relations between the government and opposition, it could also bring to light splits within the government camp itself.
The most important question the Assembly will face once installed is who will become its president. The outcome will depend on which faction from the ruling party is deemed to have won most seats. If Maduro’s main rival, Diosdado Cabello – Vice President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) – were to prevail, this would represent at least a change of style, and could presage a split in the government.
Maduro, a former trade union leader who received ideological training in Cuba, represents the hardline, civilian left of the movement. Cabello, an army captain who took part in Hugo Chávez’ 1992 coup, belongs to its military wing, and tends to be more hawkish in public than Maduro. His comrades from the military academy are now well-placed generals.
Friction between the two camps, each of which controls distinct state institutions and sources of revenue, has occasionally surfaced despite largely successful efforts to date to maintain a unified front against the opposition. Cabello is seen by some as hostile to Cuban influence in Venezuela, but whether one of the two is more likely to negotiate remains a matter for speculation.

A whole series of 'Chavistas' have already split with Maduro, most visibly the former Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz.

But Gunson says the regime may also hit a financial wall:

The regime’s Achilles heel is its economic and financial crisis, and in particular its crushing foreign debt. Some US$5 billion in debt service payments must be disbursed before the end of this year. A chaotic default would transform the country’s economic landscape and further weaken the government’s international and domestic position.
Much will depend on the posture taken by Venezuela’s key international backers, Russia and China. As a major oil producer, Russia could step in to reduce the impact of future U.S. oil sanctions, while China could increase its financial support for Caracas by extending the debt repayment period, affording the Maduro regime some breathing space. So far, Moscow has reiterated its public stance condemning what it sees as “outside interference”, while Beijing has remained silent.
All sorts of fractures already visible could become wider and civil war is not a hysterical suggestion. Says Gunson, everybody, in particular the Opposition, faces an unpalatable but best option for an end game:
The best outcome would be for the international community to offer members of the regime a safe exit for themselves and for the country as a whole, in exchange for a credible negotiations process that reverses recent governmental decisions. ... Credible assurances should be conveyed to the government’s core leadership that a negotiated exit can include guarantees for their personal safety, and to mid-ranking officials that a transitional justice system can be put in place to prevent witch-hunts.


To cap off what was a terrible week yesterday The Observer published a surreal Editorial which pretty much told regional leaders that they had no right to lecture Venezuela because 'neoliberal'.

What it suggested anyone actually does was a complete mystery because it's final pretentious line - "Stop harrumphing. Start helping." - led to a review of a book about Chavez in the London Review of Books whose proposed 'solution' appeared to me to be 'bring back Chavez from the dead'.

No, rather than taking the opportunity to bash 'neoliberals', 'socialists' or even (despite the oh-so-strong temptations) Owen Jones what we should all be doing first and foremost is hoping that those Foreign Ministers meeting in Lima tomorrow are successful and from that they can talk, cajole, whatever Maduro down off the cliff edge.


As I was writing this a statement signed by Corbyn was issued. Apart from the 'both sides' rhetoric and the rote calls to end violence. A couple of things leapt out. Firstly that he was calling for a dialogue which regional leaders are attempting (as I explain) to which he appears completely, blithely unaware of and secondly that he references Macron calling for this rather than, say, an actual Latin American. Corbyn has a very good friend in the Mexican left-wing Presidential candidate Lopez Obrador. What I got a strong whiff off with this statement is that he hasn't called up Obrador to ask 'so what can I do to help?' Solidarity my arse.

 See also: