Spectator's Notebook
The Afro-Asian bloc went into the conference with two objectives : to destroy the Anglo- Rhodesian talks and to persuade Britain to use force and/or full United Nations sanctions against the whole of southern Africa instead. Mr Wilson rejected the second but yielded on the first. Once the 'ultimatum' expires at the end of the year we have now insisted that there will be no indepen- dence without majority rule : even before the time limit runs out we have reinstated the demand that a period of direct rule should precede the granting of independence to Rhodesia. Both these condi- tions Britain had firmly waived in the secret talks about talks, for the very good reason that both are totally unacceptable to Mr Smith and his col- leagues. Now they have been publicly reinstated.
What Mr Wilson has done—assuming he intends to keep faith with the Marlborough House agreement—is to allow the black Commonwealth to kill his own solution to the Rhodesian question without for his part accepting theirs. He has preferred the chimera of `keeping the Commonwealth together'—for how long?—to the reality of solving the Rhodesian problem. It is difficult to imagine a more irrespon- sible act. And to what purpose? If Mr Wilson fondly imagines he can now wash his hands of the whole Rhodesian business, presumably leaving it to Mr Smith to fight it out with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's 'Vietcong,' he is very much mistaken. Having successfully wrecked the talks, the Afri- can Commonwealth leaders will be back again next year to warn Britain that unless she is pre- pared to make sanctions bite by engaging in an all-out trade war with South Africa—at heaven knows what cost to the British economy—the Commonwealth will break up. But perhaps by then even Mr Wilson will have the sense to say, simply, 'goodbye.'
After U U Thant's decision to soldier on as Secre- tary-General of the United Nations until the end of the year, unless an agreed successor can be found in the meantime, does not, it seems, alter his determination to call it a day once and for all. A new Secretary-General, who has to be accept- able to East and West, black and white, capitalist and communist, developed and underdeveloped, won't be easy to find. I see that The Times's UN correspondent has listed no fewer than seventeen possible candidates—a Finn, a Swede, an Austrian, a Dutchman, a Mexican, an Ecua- dorian, a Brazilian, a Guatemalan, a Tunisian, a Guinean, a Nigerian, an Egyptian, a Ghanaian, an Indian, an Iraqi, a Japanese, and a gentle- man from Afghanistan.
But what has happened to the one country that has ostentatiously followed a policy of belonging to no blocs and having no enemies? Can Presi- dent de Gaulle, who has boasted that France alone is at peace with the whole world, have over- looked this supreme opportunity to demonstrate publicly the status he has achieved for his country? To be sure, Gaullist France has a some- what sceptical view of the United Nations, and it would be an innovation to choose a Secretary- General from among the permanent members of the Security Council. But I can't help feeling that this chance for the General to stage a public and lasting vindication of his policies is too good to miss. Perhaps Mr Mendes-France might be persuaded to throw his hat in the ring.
Liberals Devalued As I write the Liberal party's annual assembly is on the brink of its great debate on devaluation. All credit to the Liberals for being prepared to venture into this forbidden field; but much of that credit, I'm afraid, has already been lost by the Liberal executive's pussyfooting decision to support a feeble amendment designed to smother the original motion proposed by the party's two leading economists, Christopher Layton and Dr John Williamson. The official amendment is as wet as they come, declaring not only that every other plank of the Liberal platform must come first, but that even then a devaluation must occur only in the context of the sort of world-wide monetary agreement of which there is no sign whatever at the present time. So, in short, instead of the 'fierce but constructive radicalism' the Liberals have promised, we're to be given a demonstration that even the smallest parties can be split down the middle and trim like the best of them.
Devaluation is also the logical conclusion of the analysis of our present difficulties by the eminent Oxford economist, Sir John Hicks, that appears in a pamphlet published this week by that most worthwhile body, the Institute of Economic Affairs. Professor Hicks, however, shrinks from this unpalatable conclusion and presents as his alternative 'a uniform cut in all money wages and prices.' Shades of 1931 and the Invergordon mutiny: I wonder whether even Mr Wilson would go to this length to save the pound. Sir John is, I'm sure, on much stronger ground when he demonstrates the need, in our present circum- stances, for a much tighter control and slower expansion of public expenditure. The present government has already had to learn a good many unpleasant economic facts of life: here is a further dose of medicine it has yet to swallow. It won't be easy.
NHS Indentures I can think of no better example of the decline of contract, which Simon Raven writes about in a timely article on the oppo- site page, than the recent statement by Mr Kenneth Robinson, the Minister of Health, that young British doctors who had re- ceived a training largely at the expense of the State had no right to emigrate in order to take up better jobs overseas. The State first declares that entry to a medical school shall be open to all, with selection on the basis of merit alone and no strings attached, and then considers it perfectly proper—indeed moral : Mr Robinson actually had the impertinence to talk of an `obligation'—to break its implicit contract, simply because it becomes expedient to do so, informing the doctors that they must stay in Britain however badly the British government chooses to treat them in pay and conditions.
This episode has been illuminating in other ways, too. It is yet another example of the Labour party's hankering to go back from capitalism to illiberal mediaevalism : doctors are apparently to regard themselves, in return for their training, as indentured to their master, the State. And it shows clearly how the extension of state power: however well intentioned, inevitably leads to a loss of individual freedom. I'm quite sure that Mr Robinson wouldn't dream of argu- ing that a research chemist who receives an expensive training in private industry has no right to further his career in the United States. But the State first nationalises medical training, so that an aspirant doctor has effectively no choice but to graduate partially at the taxpayer's expense, and then tells him that this obliges him to renounce his freedom of movement and remain a prisoner of whatever national health service the Government is pleased to maintain. The fact that Mr Robinson is very far from being one of the Labour party's cavemen makes this insight into its gut reactions all the more alarming.
Punishment for Gluttony I return to these columns refreshed after an experimental week at one of those health hydros. (Why they call themselves by the abominable non-word 'hydro' I have no idea. There are no waters to take : the sauna bath, after all, is principally an ordeal by fire.) Judging by the rate at which these establishments are opening, this must be one of the few growth industries left in Britain—and with something of an international reputation, it seems, too : I was surprised to find that one woman inmate had come all the way from, Switzerland, the home of hypochondriacs. Was it worth it? I'm not sure. I lost weight, of course (a stone, in fact) but put most of it back as soon as I got out. All the same, to have existed without undue discomfort for a whole week on a total of five oranges, four grapefruit, one peach, one bunch of grapes, a dozen cups of China tea and three bottles of Vichy water at least proves to my own satisfaction that I'm not quite the slave of my own gluttony that I always suspected I
Previous page
