BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Grey River Argus, 18 November 1946, Page 5

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

PARTY “REBELS” Attack the Government H.T.C ?SOandEB9IYYYYO a;’n (Rec 5.5) LONDON, Nov. 16. The “Manchester Guardian” publishes what it terms a "private and confidential “five thousand word letter which 21 of the Labour “rebels” in the House of Commons se’nt to Mr Attlee offering him much “constructive criticism” of the Government’s foreign policy. The “Manchester Guardian’s” London correspondent likens this letter to that which Mr Henry Wallace sent to President Truman before his resignation. The signatories include Messrs Mackay, a'nd Crossman, Jennie Lee (the wife of the Minister Mr Aneurin Bevan), Mr Michael Foote, and Mr Sydney Silverman. The letter is divided into five sections, each of which is supported with specific arguments. The letter claims that the Government must act positively if Socialist principles are to provide an impetus to demo* cratic socialism on which alone, say the signatories, they believe that an enduring peace can be based. The signatories, firstly, affirm a belief “that British social democracy has a historic role in proving to the yorld, by leadership and example, that democratic socialism is the only final basis for world government, and can, therefore, provide a genuine middle way between the extremes of American free enterprise and the Russian totalitarian socio-political life. The signatories recognise the Governmeant’s financial and other difficulties. They allege that the Crown has appeared to act more in reaction to what other countries have done and has lost the initiative which democrats expected from it. _ They argue: “The Government is most- preoccupied with the Russian “security” measures, but it has shown no concern as to the United States expansion from Greenland to Faroe Islands i’n Japan, the Pacific Islands, and the Mediterranean, or her monopoly of the atomic bomb, her inflated military budget or her capitalistic expansion economy. The Government too often has given an impression that it is infected with the a'nti-Red virus.”

The signatories also attacked the Government’s policy as regardsSpain, Greece, and’ Germany, on the grounds that the Government’s measures have been reactionary.

The signatories’ next expressed a conviction that British Commonwealth safety must depend on UNO, but, they say: “Continuance of the Anglo-American combined Chiefs of staff and Field Marshal Montgomery’s speeches in America have tended to exacerbate Russian-American differences, which have partly been responsible for the Soviet’s intransigence. The signatories complain: “The Government is using obsolete imperial d’eafence policies, which are imposing financial burdens and are crippling to a Socialist reconstructtion programme. Palestine and the Middle East pledges have bee'n sacrificed to the imperial defence needs aS they are seen by Field Marshal Montgomery. Britain has given the world' ah impression that she accepted an American monopoly of the atomic bomb.”

The signatories say: “Thirdly, we consider that despite the Russian a'nd American scepticism, ancr disbelief and hostility regarding a basic social democrtic creed’, the British Government should follow that creed boldly, courageously and uniformly.” They argue: “British criticism of the Russian and American political, economy, and social policies is only valid when British policies are in conformity with standards by which Britain judges others.” They say: “The British criticisms regarding Poland and the other East States though they perhaps are justified, are inconsistent. when there is gross imperfection in other States, such as Greece. Spain, and the United States itself evoke little, if any, criticism.” The signatories, fourthly, consider that Britain by example, can bridge the Russian-American antagonisms by vigorously pursuing Socialist policies at home and abroad, and by showing that Britain can live on terms of amity with both.” “They say: “Britain has tended to ally herself too much with American capitalism, forgetting America’s dependence on the rest of the world, and thus weakening the position of America’s progressive forces. The signatories continue: ‘Tne •British Government’s sensitiveness to the “menace of Communism” thus appeared to be a profoundly mistaken attitude. This fear of Communism has caused the Government to support the worst species of collaoorators and political adventurers, not only in countries where Communism has been the only alternative to Fascism, but also in those countries in which the chances o Communism establishing itself wet slight. . “Democratic forces in many countrties have required political and moral support from Britain, as well as monetary assistance and foot, supplies, some of which . have been used shamefully for political pu- - poses. , ~ The signatories, vastly, express. “The opinion that the British Government’s present policy will demolish opportunities for the establishment of social-democratic policies in those countries which are suitable for them“We believe that the future of Britain and humanity is at slake, and we cannpt continue to remain silent.”.

“Rebels s’’ 5 ’’ Denounced

BY TRADES UNION SPOKESMAN UNIONS TIRED OF THEM <Rec. 8.50). LONDON, Nov. 16. Mr Tom O’Brien, Labour M.P., has condemned as “moral assassins the Labour back benchers who have tabled an amendment on the King’s speech, criticising the Government for its foreign policy. Mr O’Brien, in a speech at Hamp'■tead. declared that he d'd not want anv “affair Wallace” in Britain. Mr O’Brien is the only member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress wb ) is in the House

of Commons. He said-: “The overwhelming majority of the trade unionists have resented this attack on Mr Ernest Bevin while he is out of the country”.' He added: “These rebels are cheapening this country. They represent only a tiny fraction of British sentiment, but their action is being misinterpreted throughout the world, and incalculable harm is being done. It gives comfort only to Mr Bevin’s enemies abroad. The trade unionists are getting tired of these so-called ’intellectuals’ in their midst”.

ATTLEE ACCEPTS CHALLENGE. (Rec. 7.40.) LONDON, Nov. 17. The Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, has taken up the Labour “Rebels’ ” challenge.

The Daily Herald’s political correspondent says: If the foregin policy amendment of the rebels is moved on Monday by the Commons, Mr. Attlee will insist .that it shall be settled in the division lobbies.

The correspondent adds: Mr. Attlee will himself wind up the debate instead of Sir H. McNeil, and he -will ask for a vote of confidence. I.L.P. MAY GO OUT. LONDON, Nov. 17. The Independant Labour Party may shortly disappear from the House of Commons, following on Mr. McGovern’s resignation from the Party, because of his’disagreement about its policy. He has now applied for membership* of the Labour Party. The Daily Mail says: Two of the remaining I.L.P. ipembers in the Commons, Messrs Stephen and Carmichael, are considering doing likewise.