Spectator's Notebook

RE'S no need to get upset about the Inter- national Court's decision on the South West Africa case simply because Dr Verwoerd, for propaganda reasons, has decided to had it as a great triumph for South Africa. Of course, it's always unsatisfactory when a large court like this splits down the middle on an important issue, and in this instance the judges seem to be particularly culpable in allowing the case to drag on for so long, at a cost of millions of pounds, before de- ciding that the plaintiffs—Liberia and Ethiopia —in effect had no locus standi in the dispute. But the majority decision implies no approval of South Africa's stewardship of South West Africa, still less of the practice of apartheid itself. Essentially, it reaches the surely sensible conclu- sion that the problem of South West Africa—and therefore of Southern Africa in general—is a political and not a juridical problem. It is possible that this will lead to increasing trouble within the Republic, as the Africans despair of help from outside : it is not yet clear how effective the banned black nationalist parties are capable of being. It also, plainly, takes the heat off Britain and America, who might have found themselves faced with a United Nations demand to take action against South Africa to implement an International Court judgment.

But only slightly, for the United Nations can —and no doubt will—still press the case even without the moral backing that was expected to come from the Hague, and both Britain and the US will still have to make up their minds exactly what they are prepared to do about South Africa —or, rather, whether they are prepared to do any- thing at all. For Britain, of course, a policy of economic sanctions (which in any case could never be made fully effective) would deal our own economy, weak enough as it is, a very severe blow indeed; and even America, which under shrewd South African prompting, and put off by instability elsewhere in Africa, has been rapidly increasing its investment in the Republic, would not be unembarrassed.

There is enough trouble in the world at the moment without starting—at immense cost to Britain in particular—yet another holy war. The best hope is that the South African government will, in its own interests, continue its policy of trying to improve relations with black Africa, offering the new emerging states the aid that Britain, it seems, can no longer afford; and that a period of co-existence will develop in which Britain can decently develop a policy of non-inter- vention in African affairs. No doubt that is what Dr Verwoerd wants: we might remind him, how- ever, that non-intervention cuts both ways. We should still stand • aside even if Russia were- misguidedly—to try and play a hand in Southern Africa.

Ramsay MacWilson It's exactly a year since I wrote an article in the Financial Times headed 'Do we need a national Government?' At the time sterling was under heavy pressure, and Mr Callaghan was busy pre- paring a panic package of deflationary measures. I remember causing a certain amount of conster- nation by asking the paper's picture library to illustrate the piece with a photograph of Mr Ramsay MacDonald. A dusty print was eventu- ally rescued from the archives: I doubt whether it's had a chance to gather much dust since.

Last weekend the pound was once again under heavy pressure, and the Chancellor was busy pre- paring yet another panic package of deflationary measures. In his Macclesfield constituency the chairman of the Tories' 1922 Committee, Air Com- modore Sir Arthur Vere Harvey, was reported as saying, 'If things continue as they are the only thing possible for Wilson may be . . . to come to us and ask us to form a National Government. I may be saying something against my party but the country must come first.'

I hope the Air Commodore won't mind my pointing this out, but something happened during the intervening twelve months : a general election. A year ago Labour had an overall majority of three and there was a real doubt whether Mr Wilson would be able to get whatever he wanted to do through the House of Commons. And such was the pre-election atmosphere that governing was coming a poor second to electioneering. To- day the position is utterly different. With a massive overall majority (poor Ramsay Mac, incidentally, had none at all), not to mention the support of a huge lead in the public opinion polls, Wilson can do what he likes. If he knows what to do to put the economy right he can do it; if he doesn't know what to do he can resign.

A coalition government is undesirable at the best of times since a strong opposition is a necessary safeguard of individual rights, and it's particu- larly ludicrous when it is the failure of the policies of the bipartisan consensus that is a prime cause of our present economic and political predica- ment. Constitutionally, it can properly come about only if a Prime Minister is unable to secure a majority in the House for his policies without calling on the support of the opposition party. And that hasn't happened yet. In any case, even if the back-bench Labour revolt were to grow to the point where this does happen, the Tories (pace the Air Commodore) would make it a condition of acceptance that the coalition government is headed by someone other than Mr Wilson. And that, said John, is that. Putting country above party is one thing. But putting country above self? Never. No, there ain't gonna be no national government

Innuendo

I've always felt that one of the strongest argu- ments for the abolition of the death penalty was that it was the only way of bringing to an end one of the most boring (because unchanging) issues of our time. In much the same way, it would be well worth curing the country's balance of payments problem once and for all if only to get shot of the ineffably wearisome economic debate. In an effort to find a new angle to this tired old story, the Guardian last Tuesday came out with a leader- page item on Sir William Armstrong, the Joint Permanent Secretary to the Treasury (which dis- played its ignorance by referring to him as 'Bill,' a name he is never called), which I really can't allow to pass without comment.

The Guardian's conclusion that 'his reputation may stand or fall by what happens after tomor- row' was extraordinary enough, in all conscience, but the statement that 'he believes in the policies Labour has tried,' with its innuendo that Arm- strong is some sort of Labour sympathiser, was absolutely outrageous. Of course Armstrong believes in what he is doing under the present Government—just as he believed in what he was doing under the last Conservative government, and will do under the next. I'm all in favour of journalists looking behind the ministerial façade to the permanent officials who so often do more to shape policy, but to imply that senior officials not only bat for-Whitehall but actually take sides in the party battle is monstrously unfair, and nowhere more so than in the case of William Armstrong.

Selling Britain Short Mr Kosygin (at the British Industrial Exhibi- tion in Moscow): 'You have many double-decker buses, don't you?'

Mr Wilson: 'Yes, and they are almost always late.'

Hovercraft salesman (to Mr Kosygin): 'This one has a top speed of eighty knots.'

Mr Wilson (butting in): 'That's about 120 kilo- metres an hour.'

As every schoolboy knows, eighty knots is in fact getting on for 150 kilometres an hour.

NIGEL LAWSON