Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s first visit to Washington as Prime Minister to meet the new American President has naturally attracted discussion on the state of the Anglo-American alliance. The public discussion has revolved round the question of Britain’s trade with Cuba and the unofficial American threats of boycott as a measure of reprisal against firms which do business with Cuba. This controversy illustrates how the best of allies can fail to understand each other.
The British Government’s position on the question of trade with communist countries including Cuba has been both firm and clear. Except in respect of strategic goods, it will not discriminate against communist countries. This is a matter of both principle and necessity. As a nation whose livelihood depends on trade, it cannot afford the luxury of spurning avenues of expanded trade. On the political level it regards trade with communist countries as an instrument of widening East-West relations and thus easing tension. Though he is himself lean, Sir Alec argues that since fat Communists will be less aggressive than lean ones the West should help their economic advance.
The American administration, on the other hand, has tended to regard trade as an instrument of cold war. Trade with China and Cuba is barred on that account. The agreement to sell wheat to Russia was attended with an altogether unnecessary and unseemly controversy because of the same tendency. Now China and Cuba are placed in a different category from Russia and the East European communist countries on the plea that the latter accept the desirability of co-existence. No one here shares the American belief that trade boycott can bring down Castro or compel Russia to abandon him on account of the high cost of maintaining him in office. In any case, the British ask, how can the Americans maintain the holier than thou attitude now they have agreed to sell wheat to Russia?
Valuable
Britain is too valuable a partner for any administration is Washington to risk alienating. Recent events have underlined the continuing importance of the British role. Without expeditious British intervention in Cyprus, Turkey and Greece might have become embroiled in a conflict serious enough to cause the collapse of NATO’s Eastern Mediterranean flank. Without similar British presence in East Africa, the region might well have been plunged into chaos. Also Britain is not the only country unwilling obediently to fall in line on the question of trade with Cuba. France and Spain are, for instance, equally firm on this question. For America to attempt reprisals is to give up hope not only of success of the recent round of tariff negotiation, but also of recovering some of the lost ground in Europe.
What the Americans have achieved by this manner of reckless talk is to strengthen the popular image of themselves as being impetuous and unsteady. Anti-Americanism is never far below the surface here and comes to surface easily. The last time it burst into the open was towards the end of 1962 when the Kennedy administration cancelled the Skybolt missile project on which depended the future of the RAF Bomber Command. But till this week no one could imagine that distrust of American policies was as widespread as has now been revealed by a nationwide gallup poll conducted for The Daily Telegraph.
A Survey
The findings of the gallup poll show that as many as 16 per cent of those interviewed regard America as a country “which is opposed to us in important respects” with nine per cent undecided on whether America is friendly or opposed to Britain. Fifty per cent of the people would, on this calculation, prefer conscription to dependence on America to meet overseas commitments; only 24 per cent would choose to rely on America and 26 per cent are undecided. Similarly, 51 per cent feel that American business has too much influence in the running of Britain’s economic and financial affairs and 46 per cent regard America’s cultural influence on the young people is for the bad. Nearly 70 per cent think Britain is right in trading with Cuba and 48 per cent favour recognition of China. Incidentally, this is the first survey of its kind in this country.
The alignment of the Labour party’s policy on defence with American strategic thinking had created the impression that anti-Americanism was now stronger among the right wing Conservatives distrustful of American pressure for the liquidation of the remnants of the empire than among the left wing Labourites. The gallup poll findings do not support this view and show that differences of opinion among the supporters of the two major parties on most of the questions are minor.
It would be wholly erroneous to conclude from the Cuban trade controversy or disagreement over the approach to Indonesia that Anglo-American relations have entered or about to enter a period of misunderstanding and strain. The British have too lively an appreciation of the fact that Western Europe’s, which includes their own security, rests on American power. Also the talk of West Germany replacing Britain as America’s closest ally has proved meaningless. The West German Chancellor, Dr Erhard, like his predecessor Dr Adenauer, finds it necessary in the national interest to co-operate with President de Gaulle who has become an anathema to both the Americans and the British. The inference is that if the British Government goes its own way irrespective of American susceptibilities, it will have the support of public opinion. The basic fact is that the period of American hegemony in Europe is over and the Americans have little choice but to acquiesce in the pursuit of an independent policy by Britain as well as France.
The British and French styles of diplomacy within the alliance are strikingly different. Unlike President de Gaulle the British are undemonstrative in their defiance of America. The British approach in America is admirably summed up in a recent article by Mr. Richard Crossman on the occasion of Mr. Macmillan’s announcement of his decision to retire from public life. Mr. Crossman has quoted what Mr. Macmillan told him when the former took over as head of psychological warfare at the Allied forces headquarters in Tunis during the last war, where Mr. Macmillan was the British political adviser to General Eisenhower.
Mr. Macmillan had said: “Remember when you go to the Hotel St. George (headquarters of the Allied forces) you will regularly enter a room and see an American colonel, his cigar in his mouth and his feet on the table… when your eyes get used to the darkness, you will see in a corner an English captain, his feet down, his shoulders hunched, writing like mad…
“Mr. Crossman, you will never call attention to this discrepancy. When you install a similar arrangement in your office, you will permit your American colleague not only to have a superior rank and much higher pay, but also the feeling that he is running the show. This will enable you to run it yourself.
Masterly
“We, my dear Crossman, are the Greeks in the American empire. You will find the Americans as the Greeks found the Romans – great, big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt. We must run the Allied forces headquarters as the Greek slaves ran the operations of Emperor Claudius”.
Mr. Macmillan practised this approach in a masterly fashion not only during the war but as Prime Minister. The ascendancy he had established over General Eisenhower during the war served him well in peace-time in restoring Anglo-American relations which were badly shattered by the Suez crisis in 1956. He initiated the police of improving relations with Russia and Washington followed in due course. Washington’s policy towards the Common Market shifted with him. He secured first access to American nuclear secrets and later agreement to buy Polaris missiles without giving up the independent deterrent. It remains to be seen whether his successors can continue to perform the miracle of manipulating American power to underwrite British policy and purposes.
The Times of India, 15 February 1964