Letter to Mr. Denis Healey
By CANON L. JOHN COLLINS T MUST admit that I am disappointed. As a 'Christian Socialist, I joined the Labour Party because I supposed that, if in power, it would try to apply realistically, though perhaps gradu- ally, the principles of Socialism to Britain's home and foreign policies. So, despite the wide- spread scepticism of those who had lost faith in British parliamentary democracy, despite the badinage of Tory friends and acquaintances, despite even my own misgivings as I looked back upon the revolution that never took place in 1945, I hoped great things of the return to power of the Labour Party last October. Labour's election manifesto and many candidates' election speeches, particularly some by the leader of the party, encouraged us to hope for a new approach to disarmament, to the United Nations and to the Cold War. This, it is true, was balanced by promises of a continuing commitment to the Western alliance. But, like countless others who voted for Labour last October, I hoped that the return of a Labour government would mean, at least, an end to bipartisan foreign policy and a beginning of a new defence policy.
That our hopes are not being fulfilled is, of course, not entirely your fault. I realise, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would very much like to cut the Defence Estimates—there are lots of other and more worth-while projects he would like to feed with some of your £2,000 million. It is, I suppose, the Foreign Office that calls the tune. But it is a sad thing to see you playing the same role as Conservative defence ministers before you. Of course, you will be more efficient than they were; in your capable hands we shall, I am sure, cease to stumble from one expensive error to another. But, unless you can escape from the ministrations of civil servants and militarY advisers whose attitudes are geared to a Tory foreign policy, I am afraid that the
pattern will remain, and the level of expenditure, too, it would seem.
But you could do something about it. You are, after all, a member of the Cabinet. And it is the Cabinet which is responsible for foreign policy, not Mr. Michael Stewart. May I, then, make one or two suggestions about what I think you could say and do within the Cabinet to meet some of those promises you made last October about disarmament?
First, there is the question of priorities. Your present policy is contradictory. Your commit- ment to the Western alliance conflicts with your . commitment to disarmament. Your commitment to overseas bases and the East of Suez role for Great Britain conflicts with your stated pur- pose of helping to build up the strength and authority of the United Nations. Your over- zealous acceptance of American influence in matters of defence militates against your ability to ease the tensions created by the Cold War. And because you are giving priority to the wrong commitments, the others are being neglected.
This has become only too evident in the present Vietnam crisis. Who, last October, could have believed that a Labour government would, by its silence, appear to condone the use of napalm bombs? Or who would have imagined that the emergence of China as a nuclear power could be used by a Labour administration as an excuse for perpetuating the British nuclear force for what, to many, looks like an imperialist role?
Were I hidden under the Cabinet table, I would like to hear you speak out there in favour of openly criticising the actions of our allies, when- ever they conflict with the needs of disarmament and peace. I would like to hear you move that Britain press openly for the admission of China to the United Nations and her inclusion in dis- armament talks. I would like to hear you argue
that the situation in Europe has changed radically, and that the British government ought to try to initiate new forms of security and co- operation between East and West. I would like to hear you propose that British overseas bases be put under the authority of the United Nations. And l would like to hear you insist that Lord Chalfont, when the Disarmament Commission at long last meets again, puts for- ward the sort of radical initiatives towards dis- armament that we were promised last October. Maybe you do say all these things: if so, I beg you, should your words go unheeded any longer. to resign and make your requests known to the public.
Secondly, there is the question of the language you use when speaking of defence matters. The requirements of diplomacy, and the pressures of civil servants and military advisers, must always be constraining influences upon a party when it is in power. But this, surely. need not mean the loss of vision; nor should it mean a failure to speak of defence policy in terms of an overall desire to abandon former British attitudes. Of course, in exploring such things as the ANF you have to keep within your terms of reference as a Minister of the Crown. But was it necessary, for example, for you to justif) the abandonment of TSR-2, not as a measure of dis- armament. but as an economic necessity. leaving the way open, either to buy an equivalent American plane or for alternative projects to be undertaken with France or Germany or both? If only you could sometimes help us to believe that you really do, through your defence measures, seek a better world, that our foreign and defence policies are not dictated by selfish interests of bankers in Zurich or of our American allies, if only you could do this, many of us who voted you into power, not excluding many of the constituency Labour parties. would be much happier.
The roots of the Labour Party are in moral principles, its lifeblood is the moral fervour of those who have wished to see these principles applied realistically to the practical day-to-day affairs of the nation. A lot of people inside and outside the Labour Party have talked and worked and marched (and they will be marching again this coming weekend) because they have believed that nuclear arms have created a world in which force as an instrument of politics must be under the control of international agencies. Last October it seemed that the Labour Party understood this. But now some of us are beginning to wonder. Maybe it is just a question of public relations— but, please. do not leave it too long before you let the public know that you do not believe we can survive in the nuclear age on discussions about, say, the alternative merits of this or that aircraft; please tell us what positive things you are going to do about disarmament, about the United Nations, about peace in Vietnam.
The Labour Party must not trim its sails in order to retain power. But if, for fear of the economic consequences, the British electorate should be foolish enough to reject a genuine Labour programme based upon Socialist prin- ciples, let the disorganised Tories reap the whirl- wind; the day might then soon come when the electorate, awakened from apathy, tired of any 'I'm all right, Jack' attitudes and desirous of a government which offers a real alternative to Tory rule, would turn thankfully to a Labour Party that had preserved its soul as well as its body.
Best wishes, Yours ever,
L. JOHN COLLINS
Previous page
