THE IGNORANT ARMIES
rT4HE agenda for the Conservative Conference These are uninspiring principles, and the hostility to UN, taken in its context of reference to Suez, is alarming. A year ago at the con- ference a Conservative spokesman was de- claring that 'if . . . the United Nations were to find itself unable for one reason or another to do its duty . . . this would not absolve us from doing ours ,. , .' and this was the theory that led to Suez.
What the Conservative constituency parties are evidently unwilling to see is the relative decline in Britain's power since the war. It was not a vote in the General Assembly which brought the Suez operations to an end. It was the fact that Britain had embarked on a policy which it lacted the strength to carry out without support from the Commonwealth and America. That support was not forthcoming—nobody thought/ it worth while to try very hard to get it—andi the operation collapsed. The whole affair was a demonstration of the simple fact that policies must be related to power, and that a nation weaker than it once was has every interest in maintaining standards of international morality.
Constituency parties notoriously run to lunatic fringes, and, it would be unfair to blame the Government for its supporters. Moreover, the Labour Party Conference last week was hardly more reassuring, in spite of Mr. Bevan's welcome breath of realism. That it should have been necessary to bring his personal prestige to bear to defeat a resolution calling for the unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons by a future Labour Government shows in what a cloud- cuckoo-land many of the delegates live. However desirable the abolition of all nuclear weapons may be, to pledge Britain in advance to make no use of them would be to make its position within NATO quite impossible. As for the more con- structive side of the Labour Party debates, the proposal to set aside 1 per cent, of the national income for under-developed territories begs most of the difficulties involved, and the assurance that the next Labour Government would grant demo- cratic self-determination to Cyprus, though praiseworthy in itself, risks postponing any solution for two years.
The moral is that foreign policy by its very nature is singularly ill-suited to discussion within the framework of party politics. This was always so, but the difficulty has grown since the war. The position of this country has changed so much since 1945 that it has been very hard even for those with access to accurate information to accustom themselves to the new situation. Men who grew up in a world where the importance of the European Powers was paramount are likely to continue acting as though this were so, even when they see the facts are against them, just as a chicken continues running after its head has been cut off. The palmary example of this is British behaviour in the Middle East, where policies .which had been based on the availability' of the Indian army were disastrously prolonged after the foundation of India and Pakistan. And this sort of error occurs irrespective of political party. The Conservatives may wish Britain to save itself by its own exertions and the Labour Party may wish it to save the world by its example, but the basic miscalculation lies in the estimate of this country's power to do so. The Conservatives have had their shot at 'going it alone.' What Labour would do remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely that high-sounding resolu- tions will impress a world more interested in the stability of our economy. As Mr. Bevan said, conferences cannot be swayed by sermons.
No party foreign policy is possible in Britain today. Without our friends we cannot exist, and consultation with them inevitably involves some loss of freedom of action, so that the area in which purely British decisions can operate is restricted from the start. No more than Sir Anthony. Eden could afford a breach with America over the Middle East could a Labour Prime Minister carry through any scheme to evade our obligations under the NATO treaty, and, to do Mr. Gaitskell justice, he would not want to. There are three areas where British policy can most profitably exercise influence in the world today, and in these there is no real disagreement between the parties.
First, Britain can bring influence to bear on the general course of Western policy, and both Labour and Conservative would agree that this ought to be a moderating influence—particu- larly in the Far East and in questions which might involve a head-on clash with the Soviet Union. Secondly, ties with the Commonwealth can be strengthened and, though it might seem that one party would be inclined to put more emphasis on the Afro-Asian part of it than the other, in office they have both behaved alike. The Con- servatives have continued the policy of granting independence to colonies like Malaya or Ghana, and the Labour Party has done nothing even to annoy the South Africans.
The third area of policy is Europe, and here the parties do differ a little in emphasis. The present Government has been taking cautious steps into the Free Trade area, while some sections of the Labour Party have barely concealed their dislike of the whole idea. Here is an issue on which the Conservatives seem to be more firmly in the right, but the difference is more apparent than real. Mr. Gaitskell, Mr. Wilson and the TUC have all sill? ported association with the Common Market, and that will be enough to hold the Left in check. Foreign policy, then, does not present quea110115, which can be answered in party terms. Little thal takes place either at the Labour or Conservative conferences will prove to have much connection with those courses of prudent moderation which this country must pursue if it is to avoid a catas' trophe. Unfortunately, the opinions of the average party politician exist through opposition to tht'se held by his rivals, and this is doubly true of his views on foreign policy. The result is that allY discussion of foreign affairs is obscured by af°,g; bank of slogans 'where ignorant armies clash ur night' beneath tattered party banners. What isd wanted is more information among the rank an file in the constituencies. That being so, would not be as well if the leaders recognised it anu, started talking to their followers about the facts ar foreign policy? They might even educate them.
Previous page
