IN THE STEPS OF GEOFFREY DAWSON
The press: Paul Johnson
on appeasement in the quality papers
THE Iraqi invasion of Kuwait stirred uneasy memories of Suez for many of us. In 1956 I was writing the Middle East leaders for the New Statesman, and sup- ported the policy then known as 'coming to terms with the Arabs'. We saw them as people who were only just acquiring full nationhood under a new generation of young leaders, such as Gamel Abdul Nas- ser. They had been bossed about by the British in the past, and treated atrociously by the French. For the Egyptians to seize the Canal was unlawful and provocative but for the British and French to invade Egypt in order to get it back was out- rageous. I was so stirred that, at the end of 1956, I wrote a short book, The Suez War, the first to appear on the subject: it was published the day before Sir Anthony Eden resigned. But mine was a minority viewpoint. Even the Labour Party was divided over Suez, and was united in the event only by the sheer ineptitude of government policy. The press was over- whelmingly in favour of force. The only significant newspapers which opposed it were the Guardian and the Observer, and both lost a lot of readers in consequence.
But Suez was a long time ago. Some of those now editing papers were children then, or not even born. Opinion has changed radically in two important re- spects. We have had more than 30 years' experience of Arab nationalism and we now know it to be a disaster, not least for the Arabs. It has no sympathisers in Britain, especially as practised in its most brutal form by Saddam Hussein. In recent days I have scanned the press in vain for a word of support or understanding for Iraq. Saddam Hussein is universally denounced as a monster, which he is, and almost invariably compared to Hitler, which he is not — in the sense that he is not in charge of one of the world's strongest industrial- ised countries with an unrivalled tradition of militarism. The overestimation of Iraq as a military power helps to explain the second change: the reluctance among most editors of quality newspapers to back the use of force. If there were a Geoffrey Dawson Chair of Appeasement, there would be strong competition to occupy it, as the editorials published on Friday made clear. The Independent felt Iraq's conquest of Kuwait was irreversible. It was 'prob- able' that 'once the protests and hand- wringings have run their course we shall have to accept the fact that there can be no return to the status quo ante. A wrong has been done but there is no way of righting it at acceptable cost.' The Times agreed: 'A mostly American counter-invasion to force Iraq to withdraw, as requested by the exiled Emir, is not an option. The opera- tion would have to be on a scale not seen since Vietnam. As a war it would be appallingly messy and by no means certain in its conclusion.' The Times settled for the 'resolute prosecution' of a 'waiting game'. The Daily Telegraph admitted that 'appeasement can only feed President Hus- sein's megalomaniac appetite'. But it de- scribed the options open to the West as ranging merely 'from blockading the Gulf to freezing Iraqi assets overseas'. It also thought the 'international community' should not be deterred from 'registering its disgust' in what it called 'a measured and effective way'. The Guardian began badly by ranking Suez along with Hitler's inva- sion of Poland and Pearl Harbor as an 'act of aggression' that was 'uncontestable' the whole point about Suez was that people argued passionately about its rights and wrongs. A little tougher than the Tele- graph, the Guardian wanted to employ 'all legitimate means' to bring about 'the col- lapse of the present regime in Baghdad'; however, it added hastily, 'this excludes ll be glad when this hosepipe ban is over.' military intervention on grounds both of principle and practicality'.
Among the qualities, the first plausible leader I read was in the Financial Times on Saturday. It set out a realistic view of the likely effectiveness of economic sanctions and concluded they would not work unless the West acted decisively to 'stiffen the Arabs' backbone'. To do that 'military force will be needed to deter and prevent Iraq from breaking out of economic encirc- lement'. That, thought the FT, was entirely practicable: 'It is absurd to pretend that the combined arsenals of both superpowers, with the assistance of every other major industrial and military power in the world, are insufficient to overawe one ruthless dictator.'
Some of the Sunday qualities were also prepared to see force used. The Sunday Times leader urged 'a naval blockade of Iraq-Kuwait ports and the closing of the two pipelines that run through Turkey and Saudi Arabia'. It also wanted America and other Nato powers to send 'a sizable taskforce to the Gulf to defend Saudi Arabia once the Iraqi pipeline is shut down. If Iraq still attacks, the West will have to be prepared to go to war to defend its vital interests.' The Observer took an even stronger line, perhaps because Sad- dam Hussein hanged one of its correspon- dents earlier this year. It thought it was going to be 'desperately difficult to get out of this one without an exchange of rocket fire'. Hussein was likely `to stay on the attack', and 'if the world negotiates a settlement with him this time, he will be back with another venture tomorrow'. Sanctions 'pursued with real determina- tion' might lead to his overthrow. But failing that, 'he will have to be clearly and decisively beaten in the military language he understands. . . . No wonder the US is gathering its task forces and preparing its bombers. It may need them very soon.'
By comparison, the Sunday Telegraph was almost mute. Its main comment, writ- ten as usual by Peregrine Worsthorne, promised a firm line — 'Down with the defeatists' — but turned out not to be about the Middle East at all. There was a little Middle East leader underneath it but it did not say what the paper stood for. The Sunday Independent was contradictory. It
thought an oil embargo was the 'only serious option' in addition to 'the freeze on assets already announced'. But in the next paragraph it urged 'the threat of aerial retribution' as 'particularly appropriate'.
The Sunday Correspondent had nothing to
propose other than rhetoric. It thought 'there is no feasible military way of dislodg-
ing [Husseinr , adding, 'it is no good wringing our hands about sanctions not working. They must be made to work.'
All in all, not an impressive showing by our quality press. At the time of Suez there
were six of these papers. Now there are ten. Another case of Kingsley Amis's maxim, 'More means worse'?
Previous page
