We are told that the Government’s defence policy will be based upon Britain’s peace-keeping role in the area between Suez and Singapore. In politics, words are sometimes (perhaps mostly?) used to mean the opposite of what they say. The first major fruit of this new role seems to be the provoking of war in this very region. Every student of politics knows that the Malaysian Federation was created to give a majority of Malays against the politically ‘unreliable’ Chinese of the Malayan Federation and Singapore. How else can one explain this peculiar amalgam of territories which share only one common feature: that they have been under British imperialist domination and have vast British investments?
All the scare stories in the press about the bogeyman Soekarno are designed to obscure this.simple fact. Soekarno is motivated by many factors in launching his attacks against Malaysia but he expresses the feelings of the masses in the under-developed countries. They are determined to fight neocolonialism just as they fought—and beat—direct colonialism. They are determined to end this state of affairs where the richest countries in the world (so far as resources are concerned) are populated by the poorest people in the world.
If Labour is to pursue a peace-keeping role it will do better to ally itself with this movement rather than try to hold it back. By so doing it wil! be striking at the basic causes of world tension—not Soekarno’s ambitions —but economic and social contradictions. The money which is being given to Denis Healey’s Ministry of Defence to fly troops out to Malaya should be switched to Barbara Castle’s Ministry of Overseas Aid. Instead of sending V-bombers Labour should send machine tools, plant, technical know-how, etc., as gifts or on long term credits. The sending of such aid — without strings — would pley a real peace-keeping role and make possible negotiations with Indonesia to work out the best way self-determination can be arranged for the peoples of South East Asia.
A message from the Editor of VOICE OF THE UNIONS
The Steel Bill will be drafted very shortly. It is therefore essential that the steelworkers themselves should immediately formulate the broad policies they would like to see carried out—we can then help with publicising | these views, lobbying M.P.s, deputations to Ministers, etc.
We propose therefore that: I/We would like to attend/send (x) All those concerned should form a National Steelworkers’ Comdelegates to drafting meeting on ' mittee and persuade as many shop stewards and organisations as possible to “Policy for Steel” to be held in | ‘Xe part. Nottingham, 6th-7th Feb . 1965. (2) Members should be persuaded to canvass the industry as widely . Te SS ae) as possible and write down—either as a policy draft, or as rough notes—all Within two weeks we will send the ideas and proposals now being discussed. you our wiews and comments for If these notes are sent to us we will undertake to duplicate and circu-
To VOICE 71 New Kings Rd., London S.W.6.
- circulation. | late them for discussion. | (3) The Committee should then meet to work out a detailed policy statement as the basis of a national campaign. We suggest this meeting take ia ee Sea rll nhl peer aa place in Nottingham on February 6th and 7th. (Our Nottingham friends | can provide accommodation.) RPE a aisa etc enc nse | We must emphasise again that it is not our job to ‘formulate’ policy for the steel industry; this must be done by the steelworkers themselves. Once Rideatigte ts ch gee | this initiative has been taken we will do everything we can to help. | With best wishes for the New Year.
Yours fraternally,
R. J. FLETCHER,
Editor—VOICE