Corbyn would annihilate the special relationship

A Labour government risks irreparable damage to a cooperation that has been mutually beneficial

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States and the United Kingdom have cooperated closely, especially on defence and security matters. The few exceptions are well known – such as the US refusal to support the Anglo-French attack on Egypt in 1956 or the UK’s refusal to send ground troops to Vietnam – precisely because the norm is mutually supportive. This does not mean there has always been complete agreement. There have been periods of close cooperation – especially when the American and British leaders have a real relationship – and times where the partnership has been more formal.

However, there is a risk that irreversible damage may be done if a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party comes to power in the UK, which could come to pass soon if Boris

Johnson calls an early general election.

Already, President Donald Trump’s disdain for multilateral bodies and genuine cooperation is one source of tension, made far worse when he effectively demanded the dismissal of the UK ambassador in July. For now, the UK-US links, though weaker, continue to work effectively at the policy level and in terms of sharing security information. But the election of a Corbyn government would place even this under intolerable strain.

While making predictions about British politics at the moment is difficult, most observers strongly suspect there may be a general election either before the end of October or later in the year. The most recent European elections suggest that three or four parties could gain over 20 per cent of the votes. This is further complicated in Wales and Scotland, where nationalist parties will also win seats. Thanks to the vagaries of the British electoral system, a Corbyn-led Labour government, either as a majority or backed by an informal coalition, is thus a real possibility.

What would this mean for US-UK relations?

At a policy level, the UK would cease to be a reliable participant in groups such as Nato, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. All of these bodies may well need reform, but they will not improve from deliberately obstructionist behaviour from a Corbyn-led British government.

At the level of international relations, a Corbyn administration would likely see the UK shift support away from Saudi Arabia – possibly a useful correction – but towards Iran, while at the same time supporting the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela. Along with these shifting alliances, a Corbyn-led government is likely to be viscerally anti-Israel, going far beyond the more quizzical approach to Israel normal among European states, and in direct opposition to the United States’ usual extremely pro-Israel position.

Equally, a Corbyn-led government would be, at the very least, sympathetic to Vladimir Putin’s regime over almost any issue, ranging from Russia’s aggression in the former Soviet Union to its actions in Syria. It would take this position for quite deep-seated reasons. Many of Corbyn’s close advisers were members of the British Communist Party and come from the wing of that organisation that was most devotedly pro-Soviet. These people effectively see Putin’s regime as some form of successor state to the USSR, well worth their support.

After Russian intelligence agencies poisoned the Skripals in Salisbury in 2018, Corbyn and his associates initially repeated the various claims and conspiracy theories put forward by the Russians. They also demanded that the intelligence collected by the US and the UK on the case be shared with the Russians. Even redacted, this intelligence would have told the Russian intelligence agencies much about both the sources of the information and the analytic techniques used. As Leader of the Opposition, Corbyn was only able to demand this but not do much more. As leader of the government, he could indeed share this information with the Russians without consulting anyone.

In this context, the relationship between the US and the UK would break down at every level. The likelihood of a personal link between Trump and Corbyn is nil; the UK would follow a policy course utterly at variance to that of the US; and at the fundamental level of intelligencesharing the UK would no longer be a trustworthy partner.

Dr Azeem Ibrahim is a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute US Army War College. His report, ‘Prospective Foreign Policy of a Corbyn Government and US National Security Implications’, will be published this week by the Hudson Institute