A letter from London: Adenauer’s intervention: Girilal Jain

The British Government has tried to play it cool in the face of a grave provocation from the West German Chancellor, Dr Adenauer. His charge that the British Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, spoke in two voices on the question of the political union of Europe has been ascribed to misunderstanding. Relevant extracts have been produced from the speeches of Ministers to prove that the British government has always been keen to play its part in the political integration of Europe once the question of its membership of the Common Market is settled. Pro-European papers have dismissed Dr Adenauer as an old man at odds with his own party who has just one more year to run as the Chancellor.

The West German Foreign Minister, Herr Schroeder’s interview to a German newspaper has been interpreted by Whitehall to mean that there has been no change in Bonn’s official position of facilitating Britain’s entry into the Common Market. But unfortunately for the British government, Dr Adenauer and Herr Schroeder are agreed on two important points and Herr Schroeder has said openly what Dr Adenauer has all along implied or said behind closed doors. First, negotiations for Britain’s entry into the Common Market would continue well into 1963, which puts off the date of Britain’s entry till at least January 1964. Secondly, the proposed political union could and should be formed in advance of Britain’s admission. Whether this proves possible or not is an altogether different issue. The differences among the Six remain so considerable that it has not even been possible so far to arrange a meeting of the heads of State.

Distrust

On the whole Dr Adenauer’s intervention has not been unproductive. It has brought into public the British government’s commitment to join the proposed political union. It is even willing to accept a fait accompli if the Six are able to reconcile their own differences. Meanwhile it cannot be ruled out that the Brussels negotiations may be deliberately prolonged by France and Germany to gain time for shaping the political union according to their likes and needs. In suggesting two types of membership – those who are members of both the economic and political communities and those who are excluded from the latter – Dr Adenauer has given expression to an attitude of distrust towards new applicants. It will be highly surprising if this inward looking attitude does not find any sympathetic echo among other members of the community.

Meanwhile the British defence experts have been busy working out the future of their nuclear deterrent when the country goes into Europe. This problem will figure prominently in the discussions between the British Defence Minister, Mr Peter Thorneycroft, and his American counterpart, Mr McNamara, when the former visits Washington this month. By coincidence or design this visit will coincide with the opening of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference here on September 10. The question of Britain’s military commitments in the Indian Ocean and the Far East will also figure in these talks as also the size of this country’s conventional forces which are expected to reach the target of 170,000 men by the end of the year. The figure of 165,000 has already been achieved.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent, dependent in good measure on America’s willingness to share secrets, has been independent only in name. The decision to scrap the Blue Water and virtually opt out of the missile race makes this dependence on America even more obvious. The British army on the Rhine – the Blue Water missile was being developed specifically for it – will now be totally dependent on the American Corporal and Sergeant missiles. The nuclear warheads will also be supplied by the United States.

Missiles

This is not all. By 1965 the Royal Air Force will be equipped with American made Skybolt air -to-ground missiles. This will make this country’s strategic nuclear power as dependent on America as the army on the Rhine. Britain’s capacity to manufacture nuclear warheads rests on the agreement of 1958 under which America shares secrets with her.

On the face of it these moves tie Britain more closely to the United States. But behind them lies the assumption that the United States will be prepared to abandon its opposition to the European striking force provided it is possible for it and the Strategic Air Command to agree on the selection of targets and the conditions under which the deterrent would be used.

Meanwhile it has been reported here that French air force chiefs have been visiting the British Bomber Command to learn the secrets of operating complicated jet bombers as carriers of nuclear bombs and missiles. According to this report which has not been contradicted, the British are giving instructions to the French on methods of enabling bombers to be quickly in the air to avoid destruction on the ground by hostile rockets, the principles of selecting targets and the techniques of training nuclear bomber crews.

Mr Thorneycroft is regarded as a good “European”. This has been interpreted here to mean that his defence strategy would be based on giving priority to Europe over commitments in the far-east and the Indian Ocean. How far this assessment is valid remains to be seen. At the moment the British government is trying best to safeguard the future of the principal bases at Aden and Singapore.

The base at Aden commands the area stretching from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf to Limpopo in Southern Rhodesia. It has been decided to merge Aden with the so-called Federation of South Arabia on the calculation that this will help to protect the base against nationalist influence emanating from the middle east. The Federation comprising eleven out of 25 emirates in the Aden protectorate is in fact a “union of the rulers”. There is no movement of any kind among its 300,000 poor and illiterate inhabitants. In Aden with its population of 450,000 on the other hand there exists a powerful trade union movement and political party. The Malaysian Federation is similarly expected to make Singapore safe.

Thus while it is not clear whether over the long haul the British government will seek to reduce its commitments in the Indian Ocean it is taken for granted here that it is preparing to shoulder a heavier burden in Europe partly under American pressure and partly to prove its bona fides to the would-be partners in the European Economic and Political Community. Britain’s membership of this Community is also likely to soften America’s opposition to the European striking force and pave the way for co-operation between it and the United States Strategic Air Command.

According to Wayland Young, MP, Mr McNamara is also likely to raise the question of the British government withdrawing nuclear bombs from its aircraft carriers. Writing in the Guardian of August 30 he made the breathtaking statement that it was widely believed that “the naval support group at last year’s Kuwait operation carried nuclear weapons, and that in the event of action Her Majesty’s forces would have been defeated by the Iraqi forces if these weapons had not been used. That a lot of soldiers were incapacitated by the heat made their use more likely”. If this information is correct it shows that the grave weaknesses discovered in the British defence system at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956 have not been overcome,

Immigrants

The Commonwealth Immigration Act has been in force barely for two months and already there is a demand that it should be amended. The principal reason is that the magistrates are interpreting the clause relating to the deportation of immigrants in a manner wholly at variance with the assurance of the Attorney-General and the intention of Parliament. While the Attorney-General had given the assurance that only persons of bad character, guilty of serious crimes would be deported, magistrates have been recommending this extreme penalty in all manner of cases including shop-lifting and for all manner of immigrants.

Unlike in India neither the magistrates nor the other courts here can refer to Parliamentary debates in interpreting the law. The statute is interpreted according to its wording. The wording in this case is obscure and the magistrates are using their powers with extreme severity. In less than two months they have recommended over 150 deportations. It is interesting that a majority of them are Irish who cannot be prevented from reentering Britain under any law on the statute book.

It has been suggested that the power to recommend deportation be reserved for the High Court which can build a body of case law which magistrates cannot do. This amendment is expected to be pressed when Parliament resumes in October. This should also provide Parliament an opportunity for writing the Government’s assurance into the text.

The Times of India, 1 September 1962 

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.