delivered?
CCORDING to sources in Ghana, an envoy of the British Government
recently asked Dr. N’Krumah to furnish Britain with a new military base in the country. It is believed that the British Government offered not to deliver the sixteen “Buccaneer” bombers owed under contract to the Union of South Africa, if Ghana would provide the new base. As is well known, South Africa had threatened to deprive Britain of the use of the base at Simonstown if the aircraft were not delivered—in accordance with Labour’s official policy of refusing arms to South Africa. When the British Government announced that the aircraft would be delivered, it was explained. that a large part of the payment had been made by South Africa, so that cancellation would mean repayment of an enormous sum. And no further weapons would be sold to the South Africans.
But it now appears that the prospect of losing Simonstown was much more serious for Mr. Wilson than the financial problem. He told us why, in his December 16th speech on foreign affairs: “Britain’s overseas role depends on her having adequate bases for peace-keeping forces as an essential link in communications further afield . . . If we are to fulfil our overseas role we need the most of the bases we now hold, but we need to be accepted in those bases. To assist in creating conditions in which this would be possible must be one of the major priorities in our overseas policy.” In other words, an African base is needed to maintain communications with the east, in case Suez should be refused. If not Simonstown, then Ghana—where Britain’s “world role” should be accepted more easily! A splendid gesture of solidarity between British imperialism and the Third World! In addition, a way of tying Ghana more firmly into the Free World .. . it is not surprising that, according to the same reports, America strongly favoured the move. ~ It is also believed that the freeing of Ghana’s political prisoners was proposed as part of the accord—presumably to render it less objectionable to public opinion in Britain and America,
Naturally, N’Krumah refused to have anything to do with the deal. He plainly has a different view of Britain’s “world peace-keeping role’ from the Labour Party leaders. What is puzzling is how the latter could ever have dreamed he might agree to such a proposal. It suggests they are a little out of touch with opinion in the Third World generally.
So, South Africa obtained the “Buccaneers,” and Britain keeps her access to Simonstown. The final, piquant detail of the report must not be omitted, however. It is needed to convey the whole savour of the episode. Who was the envoy that Harold Wilson sent to Ghana? A general? Some aged negotiator from the Foreign Office, dreaming of Queen Victoria? Not at all. That is what the Conservatives would have done. Labour (it is believed) sent none other than Mr. Fenner Brockway, the aged anti-colonialist fighter, President of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, who has spent most of his life combatting the evils of British imperialism. He has been respected by generations of Indians and Africans as a symbol of the support of the British working class and the British Left for all movements of liberation from British domination. Who else but the great magician, Harold Wilson, could have found such a different, and surprising role for him?
THE WEEK is profoundly disturbed by this report, which implies that there now exists a compact between our government and the South African racists. Doubtless the commitment to aid Malaysia against Indoniesia will figure prominently in the calculations which are being made about this matter in Downing Street. Almost certainly, President Nasser would rightly block the Suez Canal to British forces in transit to any full-scale war against Indonesia. No-one in the emergent nations will do anything but condemn British intervention there, which will be generally seen as an imperialist provocation. We do not believe that the interests of British planters and mining companies weigh so heavy in the scales as to justify Labour’s involvement in any such project. We would prefer to have the goodwill of the Third World rather than a ton of profitable scrip staking out claims on the sweat of the Asian people. If the price of war against Indonesia requires a tacit alliance with Apartheid, we are absolutely convinced that not only Labour’s activists, but the vast majority of the British people, will not wish to pay it.
YORKS
Trades Councils
| on
Incomes Policy
RESOLUTION passed by the
Yorkshire Federation of Trades
Councils, 2nd January, 1965, at its
quarterly mecting. It is a slightly
amended version of a motion sub-
mitted by the Hull Trades Council.
“The Yorkshire ‘Federation of
Trades Councils, believing that in a
free enterprise capitalist society it is
difficult, if not impossible, to legislate
to limit or curb profit making, insists
that the Trade Union Movement
must retain its right to bargain freely
for wages and salaries.
An Incomes Policy which does not
recognise this first principle can only
lead to greater profit margins in
private industry and thus to increased
exploitation of those who labour by
hand or by brain.
For this reason the Yorkshire Fed-
eration will support an incomes
policy only if it shows unequivocally
the way in which rents, interest, divi-
dends and profits can be restricted.”
Mansfield wants
Stronger Unions
At its January meeting, the Mans-
field Trades Council heard the view
expressed by its secretary, Mr. W.
Watkins, that further amalgamations
should be fostered in the trade union
movement to enable them to more
effectively counteract monopolies.
The council voted to contribute £4
to the David Kitson Defence Fund.