BRITAIN AND U.S.A.

Grey River Argus, 29 November 1946, Page 3

BRITAIN AND U.S.A.

Relations Questioned BY LABOUR PARTY MINORITY LONDON, Nov. 20. The Press Association states: —A study of the official division lists in Monday night’s foreign policy amendment debate confirms that Labour members who could have voted but abstained numbered more than 100. Labour critics of the “rebels” are demanding a special party meeting at which the rebels can be officially condemned. Some who abstained insist that they did not vote solely because they would not go into the same division lobby as the mass of Conservatives. Labour leaders and whips are worried, but are not likely to call a special party meeting, as they believe that the minority is too large ' for censure without a bitter fight. It is noted that five Parliamentary Secretaries were abstainers—Major D. W. T. Bruce (to Mr Aneurin Bevan), Mr J. P. Mallalieu (Mr John ytracney), Colonel Wigg (Mr Shinwell), Mr J. E. Haire (Mi’ A. G. Bottomley), and Mrs Castle (Sir Stafford Cripps). Despite the description of “fiasco” and allegations of running away that followed the debate, there remains a feeling that the Labour Party vote against the offending amendment to the King’s Address was not as high as it could have been. It is being said that the Government should have secured a vote of at least 400 and that the large number of Labour abstentions indiates that the split over foreign policy within the party is not merely a difference of opinion between the Government and a small body of extreme Left Wingers. It may be 1 that a fairly large number of moderates are still dissatisfied with the Government’s policy. It is unlikely that the answer will be forthcoming until the Parliamentary Labour Party holds its routine meeting next week. In‘addition to the points made by Mr R. H. Crossman, who criticised the tendency towards an Anglo-American bloc, other factors are dislike of the Government’s policy towards Greece, Palestine and Spain. Undoubtedly the Conservatives’ generally approving tone towards Mr Bevin, the recent voting at the Trades Union Congress, the dismay at the “capitalistic” successes in America, as well as the necessity for conscription and the drive for production are all in the background. Personalities also enter into the question for many Labour followers disliked Mr Philip Noel-Baker losing his place in the Cabinet—his views on Greece, Palestine and Spain differed from Mr Bevin’s. They would also have preferred to see someone other than Mr J. T. Mayhew appointed Foreign Under-Secretary. The “rebels” included some extremists with pro-Communist tendencies, such as Mr K. Zilliacus, and Mr J. F. F. Patts-Mills. The larger proportion may be described as intellectuals rather than extremists. They are mostly, anti-Communists and strongly pro-Government. Will Mr Attlee’s speech in the foreign affairs debate heal the malaise is a query.

Mr Attlee, as he has done on many previous occasions, made an excellent speech. He spoke with “refreshing realism and force.” He did not hesitate to be severe and he was occasionally ironic. Mr Crossman, after the Prime Minister had finished speaking, declared that the speech had satisfied him on many points. But though Mr Attlee would apparently have been satisfied with the withdrawal of the amendment, a demand, largely from the Conservative benches insisted on a vote.

Mr Attlee’s speech is now being carefully considered. It is noted that, he emphasised that Mr Bevin is not carrying out an individual policy of his own, but the collective policy of the Government. It is- also recalled that Labour’s policy is based on support for U.N.O. On this point Mr Attlee interpolated that it was perhaps most remarkable that in Mr Crossman’s speech there was no mention of U.N.O. He continued: “The principle on which this movement vas founded was that we should work for the world organisation, not just ourselves or one big Power, or one small Power. We believe in international organisation for the prosperity of all the peoples of the world. That was accepted when we accepted U.N.0.”

Mr Attlee strongly refuted any suggestion of “ganging up” with America, because “it was reported in the newspapers that the Foreign Secretary had a talk with Mr Byrnes.” To the accompaniment of laughter he added that there were plenty of occasions when Mr Bevin and M. Molotov had talks’ together and sometimes Mr Byrnes talks with M. Molotov. “This is really ordinary practice. There must, be talks with any Minister, but it must not be taken that when any Ministers were seen together that is ganging up.” He also asked whether it was not natural to collaborate with the United States in economic matters in trying to set the world, especially Europe, on its’ feet again. It was libel to call American help imperialism. If the “rebels” agree with this statement little more may be heard of the incident.