NALSO recently issued a statement which,as well as criticising the Tories over their policy in Aden, expressed concern at Wilson's attitude. This provoked a letter from Wilson, but et its June meeting © NALSO considered the reply and stuck to its gunss It wrote to Wilsons :
"At our meeting on June 6th we considered your letter of the 20th May explaining your attitude to British military operations in Aden. In our opinion is is unsatisfectory; and we wish to make the following comments on the points you raises
a) Naturally we could not have a full copy of your statement before us. We acted on the basis of press reports which I think you will agree were quite full and in any case unlikely to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to any anti-imperialism you might have shown, In our opinion your statement was bound to be interpreted in the way that the Daily Mail, for example, did when it ran it under the headline "Wilson Backs Sir Alec." Similarly the. Sunday Telegraph was entitled to remark that you had adopted the 'Palmerstonian' tactic of claiminz you: would prosecute imperialist wars more efficiently than the imperialists themselves, Certainly the bits you quote in your defence are inadequate to counterbalance the impression that this was what you were doing.
b) We reject the suggestion that to publicly disassociate ourselves from your attitude shows “scant sense of responsibility or loyalty to the Party." On the contrary we suggest that your own behaviour has shown a profound lack of responsibility and of loyalty to the party in that such a sharp turn to the right has damaged the precarious unity of the party at a very important time, It has had a delatorious effect on morale in many places. For instance, the Oxford University Lapour Club was unanimous in its protest to you. Faced with the choice between allowing NALSO to be dragged elong by implication in the wake of this new line or of publicly disassociating ourselves we felt we had no alter= native but to make it clear we stood by our principles in this matter.
c) You say that the Labour Party condemned the Harib Fort attack in the House. We welcome this and have never thought otherwise. The bombings we were concerned about were those carried out in the Aden Federation itself, in the Radfan Mountains, initiated on the authority of Sir Alec Douglas-Home and supported by you in your statement. We confused the issue, however, by introducing the question of the U.N. and conflating their condemnation of the Harib Fort Affair with these later bombings. Nevertheless we think you will agree that your attitude is directly opposed to the April resolution passed in the UN committee on colonialism which stated that the British base at Aden was “prejudicial to peace and security in the area." This has been confirmed with a vengeance since then! Furthermore, we would remind you of the resolution introduced in the same Committee on May 8th which was sponsored by India along with many others. This referred to the "dangerous situation prevailing in the area as a result of recent British military actions," and called upon Britain "to cease forthwith all military measures" against the people of the Aden Protectorate. The Times reports that,though no vote was takensa number of delegates spoke forcefully in its favour, Your support of Home's militarism in Aden must have come as a shock to colonial and ex-colonial peoples of the world.
d) According to you the Parliamentary L.P. is not prepared to raise the issues involved because "British soldiers are under fire." This argument we utterly reject. This is the same sort of opportunist attitude as was adopted by the French left during the Algerian war and which led to their complete demoralisation and the takeover by De Gaulle. On the contrary we demand that you pin the responsibility for the loss of British and Arab lives on the Prime Minister, that you point out the useless reactionary nature of this war, and that you