THE OMENS FOR 1952 T HE year that opens next week
may see a turning-point in our national fortunes at home and abroad. It is accepted doctrine that if Russia does in fact contemplate the desperate throw of an attack on Western Europe it must -be in 1952, for after that the West will be strong enough to rob the East of an even chance, or anything like an even chance, of succe§s. There is manifest danger in this now-or-never situation. The temptation, almost the provocation, to try the throw is strong. Yet there is little,doubt that the Prime Minister was right when,, assessing the prospects soberly in his broadcast last Satur- day, he expressed his belief that the war which all men fear would not materialise. There are several reasons for that. The N.A.T.O. forces are by no means strong today, but they were sub- stantially weaker a year ago. Why, if Russia meant to strike, did she not strike then ? The assumption that she was waiting to increase her stocks of atomic bombs is not convincing, for America is almost certainly still improving her lead, and the Russians know that that process must continue for some time. One very valid reason for hesitation is Russia's mistrust of her satellites. In Czechoslovakia certainly, and to a considerable extent in Poland and Hungary, a population subjected to Com- munism sees in a general war its only hope of liberation. The Kremlin knows that well. For Stalin it is one of the major risks of war. But not all wars spring from direct intention. A new Serajevo is always possible. With Yugoslavia increasingly con- firmed in its anti-Cominform orientation, the danger of some frontier incident kindling a local spark which, before it finished, might fire all Europe is always present. For that reason it is desirable that the Prime Minister should define the manner of this country's association with a European army as soon and as explicitly as possible. There is every evidence that he satisfied French Ministers in Paris last week—and they are not easy to satisfy on this point. It is equally important to satisfy the Americans in Washington.
On the visit of British Ministers to the United States very much may hang. Anglo-American relations are tat at the moment all that the bestelements in both nations would desire. We have up complaint against the American Government, but on the contrary every reason to be grateful to it for its full co-operation with Western Europe in defence and economic reconstruction. But Congress and sections of the Press are a different matter. Domestic policies play a larger part, in an election year at any rate, in the United States than they do in Britain—where no one, fortunately, knows when a General Election is coming till it has all but come. Where the isolationist vote is strong baseless criticism of Britain may make a serviceable campaign-cry. In some quarters a combination of prejudice and ignorance has prompted an unreasoning and completely unjustified demand for the federalisation of Western Europe, and fierce attacks on this country for declining to take part in such a movement. That is the situation which will face Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden next week. It needs first to be completely comprehended and then discreetly -and delicately handled. No emissaries could be better qualified for that task than the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Mr. Churchill knows America thoroughly, and is master of the art of effective appeal. The trouble is that in the United• States today-there is no single seat of authority. There can be no question of settling great affairs in a conclave of two, as Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt did in war- time. This is not war-time, and President Truman is very far from being a Roosevelt. It will bp necessary to impress, in different ways, the President, the Secretary of State, the defence chiefs in the Pentagon and that intractable and unpredictable body, Congress. Between them the Prime Minister and Mr. Eden have it in them to do that, but it would be doing them &Lich less than justice not to recognise how formidable are the demands such a situation makes on them.
Of what, in particular, is it necessary to convince the Americans ? First of all that Britain is doing all that can be reasonably expected of her in the world. The suspicion that in this field or that she is "dragging her feet" must be dispelled. We do not claim to be saving Europe by our example, but it must be demonstrated that we are saving ourselves by our exertions. To that theme the Prime Minister last Saturday devoted an important section of a broadcast which was much the more impressive for the resolution with which its author, though he was speaking avowedly as leader of the Conservative Party and not as Prime Minister of Great Britain, refrained from party recrimination in favour of necessary exploration in more fruitful fields. We have been and still are dependent on American financial aid. There is nothing that will foster American cordi- ality towards us more than a demonstration of our power and our determination to stand unaided on our feet. The payment of the first instalment due on the American loan was a good beginning. We have, as Mr. Churchill said, to battle our way back to solvency. The facts must be faced with the sternest realism. The more rigorous the measures adopted to arrest the drift into national bankruptcy the more hopeful the prospect for the next generation and the closing years of this. Mr. Churchill's indica- tion of what the food situation is shows how abundantly justified was the decision to issue no extra rations this Christmas. The Prime Minister disclaimed, as he was fully entitled to, all responsi- bility for the situation which faced him when he took office. Whatever resources there were had, of necessity, to be strictly husbanded, and though the outcry of Opposition politicians was sharp and shrill the nation has accepted an inevitable decision with creditable equanimity. This is a relatively small matter. Much heavier sacrifices are foreshadowed, and must be. The Prime Minister's warning that when Parliament assembles next month there will be laid before it measures involving new strin- gency in many fields is ominous. It requires courage for a Government with so slender a majority to impose them. But in„ this country courage never fails of its reward.
The Prime Minister is confident of success—on two conditions. The Government must be given time, not less than three years, and there must be a cessation of what he calls party brawling. In the broadest sense those demands are entirely reasonable, but an Opposition deprived of office by a narrow margin of seats (not even by any margin of votes at all) may well regard them as a claim by a Government in office that opponents should abandon normal and legitimate attempts to put it out of office. That would be a perfectly intelligible attitude to adopt in any ordinary circumstances. But the circumstances are not ordinary, and the national welfare unquestionably demands that party interests should be subordinated■temporarily to national interests. That involves no intolerable sacrifice on the part of Labour. In foreign politics the aims, and largely the methods, of the two parties are the same. Mr. Churchill went out of his way to emphasise his agreement with much of Labour's foreign policy, and he would certainly carry Mr. Attlee at any rate with him when he dwelt on the "underlying unities throughout the whole British nation," unities far greater than any existing differences. But if unity is to be preserved the sacrifices cannot be one-sided. It is as essential for Conservative speakers as for Labour to refrain from political pinpricks—or full-sized stabs. Complete agreement in the field of domestic politics is not to be expected. • nor altogether desired ; out of the clash of argument wisdom often emerges. For Mr. Webb to applaud, or even to acquiesce In, Mr. Lloyd-George's variations of his predecessor's food policy would argue unreality Or insincerity. But there are limits to - acrimony, and they were by no means always observed in the few initial weeks of this Government's career. That indulgence cannot be afforded at the present time. We are facing crisis as a nation, and as a nation we must fight our way to safety by united effort. There would be no doubt about that if the cold war became a hot war. There ought to be equally little doubt about it as things are, for the Communists are waging the cold war very subtly. Their chief weapon, as Mr. R. G. Casey, the Australian Cabinet Minister, said the other day is inflation. • If by a threat of war they can induce the Western Powers to enter on rearmament programmes beyond their financial strength the capitalist economies may be strained to breaking-point and the aims of the Communist theorists achieved. That bloodless war must be won, and it can only be won by a national acceptance of necessary sacrifices. Every one gives scope for a party score. This is the time to demonstrate that we can-rise above that.
Previous page
