Jeremy Corbyn has been consistent in his approach to international conflicts. He believes in political rather than military solutions and that it is necessary to engage all parties to a conflict because there is no point just talking to only those people with whom you might have some sympathy or with whom you share certain interests.
On his website he states "I have always campaigned against neo-colonial wars that are fought for resources on the pretence of fighting for human rights." I think a substantial number of the British people probably agree with that. He has campaigned for those people who have been displaced by powerful states/governments, such as the Palestinians and the Chagos islanders.
When Corbyn was campaigning against the apartheid regime, Thatcher was denouncing the ANC as a "typical terrorist organisation" and refusing to impose sanctions on South Africa, preferring instead "constructive engagement" - which, in effect, meant doing virtually nothing other than labelling people fighting for equality as "terrorists". However, she was completely opposed to any sort of "constructive engagement" so far as the Irish issue was concerned. While people like Corbyn were calling for talks between all parties, she was absolutely opposed.
After Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, the British government was selling arms to both sides even though the UK was a signatory to a UN Security Council resolution calling on all members to refrain from any act which may lead to further escalation of the conflict. A secret letter from a junior minister to Margaret Thatcher sent in 1981 said "contracts worth over £150milion have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months."
There is so much hypocrisy regarding the use of the term "terrorist". It is generally used to describe groups who are opposed to a recognised government and who use terror, sometimes indiscriminately, to try and achieve their aims. It is not used to describe governments - even those governments that have, as in the case Chile, been unlawfully and violently installed by means of military coup (assisted by the US) or Saudi government which is a royal dictatorship. The fact that past and present governments - e.g. in South Africa, Saudi, Chile, etc. - use terror to subjugate and control their people - or certain of their people - does not apparently earn them the title of "terrorists".
I had not read the Independent article about Corbyn being unelectable but I had heard reports. Better not to be elected than to become a pale and unprincipled imitation of those you purport to disagree with.
Unlike some posters, I have little respect for Gordon Brown's intervention in the "Corbyn problem". At least Blair had the honesty to name Corbyn rather than to drop massive hints. And I thought his pacing up and down the stage looked ridiculous.
