Bevin's Foreign Policy is the Cause

The crux (and the solution) of the problem, however, does not lie here, but in one and a half million workers in the forces and armaments industry. Britain, before the war, had some 500,000 men under arms. It seems incredible that in her obviously reduced position among the Great Powers she should need twice as large an army now. A realistic foreign policy that is not tied to prestige and "commitments," must be recognised that such enormous force (we are spending in defence twice as large a percentage as the budget of the USSR) is sheer bluff when we have not the economic strength in this island to back it. At the same time, the uses to which these troops are being put in Palestine, India, Greece and Egypt is disgracing the name of the Labour Government and hardly corresponds to the spirit of UNO.

There is some hope that this point of view is gaining ground amongst Labour Backbenchers. Debates on the White Paper and Foreign Affairs are scheduled for the Commons this week. Geoffrey Cox, in the "News Chronicle" has suggested that the proximity of the two topics is significant and that the logic of events has led many more M.P's to join the 80 who have already pat themselves on record as opposing Mr. Bevin's "continuity policy." I hope he is right.