The Press FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1964. Southern Arabia

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30447, 22 May 1964, Page 12

The Press FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1964. Southern Arabia

Mr Duncan Sandys has given a reassuring report about the current military operations in South Arabia. But he emphasised again that the fighting in which Britain is involved because of treaty obligations to a number of rulers and because of the Aden base is more than one of the periodic rebellions of tribesmen traditionally hostile to all authority. This time. Mr Sandys says, the tribesmen are being supplied with modern arms and equipment from Yemen, where the effective ruler is President Nasser, represented by 40,000 troops. President Nasser has adroitly seized upon this chance to gain foreign sympathy for his Arab ambitions.’ Britain’s punitive action was bound to raise charges of colonialism and make opportunities for anti-British propaganda in the Security Council and elsewhere.

President Nasser’s aims may be to infuse fresh vigour into his efforts to assert himself as leader of the Arab world. He declared in Sana, the Yemeni capital, and in Cairo, that his “ primary mission ” is to “ expel the English from every part of the Arab “ homeland—to expel the English and liquidate their bases ”, Britain may have been restored to the position of arch-enemy to distract attention from President Nasser’s failure to win the civil war in the Yemen, from his co-operation with recent enemies such as King Hussein and Emir Feisal, or from Israel’s diversion of upper Jordan waters. Many of Britain’s friends wonder if Britain is handling this affair in the best way, however. The “ Economist ” asked recently why Britain should be “ a squatting target for Cairo’s guns ” while the United States, which at one time was at least as vulnerable, had won freedom of movement and initiative. Did Britain have compelling interests in the Middle East that were not shared by the United States, and, if so, why? the “ Economist ” asked. “ Or “ is Britain, in this unfair world, carrying the can “alone for a joint Anglo-American policy?” The “ Economist ” concluded that there was a common policy on the Aden base. But the Americans publicly differed from the British, recently, over recognition of the new regime in the Yemen, over the British bombing of the Yemeni fort at Harib, and in rejecting a plea for economic pressure to persuade President Nasser to keep away from Southern Arabia. A split of this kind provides opportunities for President Nasser. Britain may be entitled to greater American understanding; American as well as British commercial and strategic interests are served by the British soldiers engaged in a wearing, old-fashioned war. But a more sympathetic American attitude would not disprove the argument that what Britain, principally needs is a political settlement. A timetable for independence for Aden and a constitution attractive enough to counter the dubious prospect of absorption into the Yemen are needed to show that Britain is not merely fighting a colonial war. The “ major military success ” of which Mr Sandys spoke will, it must be hoped, provide the basis for a political solution.