impossible other than on the WILSON AND SOUTHERN ARABIA

The scan: The Week v1 no20.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.

The Financial Times ran an article last week on the reasons for : British troops being in Aden. They were there, it explained for two reasons: (1) to protect British oil interests (although the writer was dubious about their necessity for this purpose); and (2) to keep Aden as part of a world network of bases, which in turn were designed to protect British interests. By British interests that paper meant the investments and trade arran’.ements of British big business. Readers of The Week will not need further development of this point. But what about Harold Wilson? Where does he now stand in relation to the United Nations which has overwhelmingly condemned the bombings in Southern Arabia, that Wilson now defends? What is worse he commits our Party to supporting blatant gunboat style imperialis, With more sadness than anger we must protest and do all in our power to get this policy reversed. We reiterate last week's call for the withdrawal of all British troops from abroad and for the right of self-determination for the Arab neople.