The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, October 30, 1948 COMMONWEALTH’S WIDER SCOPE

Grey River Argus, 30 October 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, October 30, 1948 COMMONWEALTH’S WIDER SCOPE

r pilE relation of the Commonwealth to the international situation has been brought during the past week into more prominence, not only by the conference of Prime Ministers, and the proposal for a secret Parliamentary session in Britain to discuss defence, but also by Opposition criticism of the Government during the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Commons. In particular, Mr Churchill has questioned the principle of autonomy as regards several of the countries which are interested in the Commonwealth, but has done so in a merely sentimental, not to say a rather reactionary spirit, which may he due to the fact that, after his notable service as a war-time leader, the electors of Britain preferred the Labour Party to his own for the task of formulating and conducting the post-war recovery. hie seems even to lament the Statute of Westminster, and talks as if a degree of coercion were advisable to retain those practices of imperialism which the post-war period has pitched into the discard. It is questionable if his party are wedded in the same degree, as he is to the autocratic idea, which in wartime may have its utility, but which in time of peace is ill-calculated to retain the co-operation and good-will of such a diverse and scattered an association of peoples as those which are interested in the vital issues which the Prime Ministers have been discussing. Mr Churchill even takes a stand rather hostile to them all when

he appeals from the grave real ities of the present to the hidden future, with a wistful conjecture that, though to-day few if an; Conservatives hold power any where in the Commonwealth, there may later be a Tory revival whicl might also be a dictatorial one His inspiration is doubtless a con viction that force must be con centrated for an imperialistic polity to thrive in years to coim a,s it used to thrive in times thal are gone. His suggestion that 11 is in Australia and New Zealanc that the British Government’s initiative is least appreciated cai be judged as a fair criterion oi any strength that he considers his argument to possess. Surely the United States' is a strong argument for the principle of complete liberty’, and against the idea oi denying full autonomy, considering even the degree in which he himself relied in war time upon that count ry to rescue his own and every other one that stood up against tyranny? He is not remotely justified in suggesting that the Labour Movement anywhere in the Commonwealth or in the countries related to it economically is any less loyal than the Conservative Party elements to the fundamental freedoms to which the Commonwealth is dedicated. It is conceivable that had his ideas prevailed since the Avar, there would have now been greater troubles for the Commonwealth, and at anyrate less of a conciliatory spirit abroad in the absence of that spirit at home. ‘As Mr Morrison remarked, Mr Churchhill’s only recommendation in a greatly changing world is to return to a policy of standing still, whereas the centre of gravity is steadily changing, and putting a

- higher premium upon goodwill in . the same manner as it has dis- : counted repeatedly the shortsighted policy of imperialistic rigidity. hi the wider sphere, it has become necessary for Britain to enter into relationship with Europe for the sake of security, pointing likewise to the wisdom of greater adaptation. No doubt there is complete unity on foreign policy in the British Parliament, and likewise in the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers have affirmed it, and have insisted that the situation demands a united stand against the onset of Communism. The latest development in this regard is problematical, though not unprecedented—the charge from Moscow that Western Powers arc endangering peace. It may, as hinted, arise from anxiety on the part of M. Stalin that Russians themselves fear it is the Kremlin itself that is risking war. The Western Powers have gone to the extreme in quest of an understanding on Berlin, but as one is no nearer than before, it is only natural if the Western Powers go still further into the matter of coping with the alternative to an understanding. Manifestly no Western Power could contemplate otherwise than most anxiously a transition from the political, social, and economic hostility now prevailing to military hostility. The best hope meantime might seem to be, that, if the Soviet re- j gime now feels a need for apologetic propaganda inside its own realm, a change of. spirit therein may be threatening the Communist Party line.