Refreshing note
Sir: It seems odd (even if, in some ways, a good thing) that a Conser- vative government should be destroying my nationalism.
I first arrived in Africa—in Egypt—in 1927 when the Union Jack was everywhere. I can re- member a certain thrill of Empire. But I welcomed the change from Empire to Commonwealth. Unity by consent is a bigger thing than unity by force. Whether willingly or not (and it was with enthusiasm on the part of some) we were moving in the right direction. And in succeeding decades I have admired and been proud of every effort to make this multi-racial association work, and especially of willingness in Britain to see, and sometimes give way to, the feelings and judgments of the other members. 1 have seen the Commonwealth as a great oppor- tunity for bridging divisions. One Nation can only satisfactorily be built in the pursuit of One World.
Now I find our Conservative government talking as if the Commonwealth didn't matter much, speaking of 'our interests' as if they were something essentially different from world interests, apparently putting short-term 'efficiency' ('efficiency' for what?) above long-term co-operation, and making its 'calculations' with- out seeming to give the goodwill even of Commonwealth states a significant place. Is all this part of what is necessary to make right policy appeal to imperfect people? Or is it just a sign of bad policy?
There was a refreshing note in Douglas Brown's 'South Africa' and the Pretoria correspondent's. 'Rhodesia' (12 December). Why has the SPECTATOR not given more' attention to the power of the central African independent states? I should have thought that what the Southern Yemen has done in Sokotra might have made the Commonwealth seem important even to our present government.
W. E. Prickett P.O. Box 64, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Previous page
