Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 20, No. 3. 4th April, 1957
Where Britain Goes
Where Britain Goes
Now that the tumult an the lighting has died down in the Suez Canal Area, a few reflections on New Zealand's reactions to the crisis may be appropriate.
Regardless of whether the actions of the British and French Governments were justified or unjustified—either completely or partially—the implications of certain actions here should cause concern to the student of politics.
The principle enunciation by the Prime Minister that "Where Britain Stands, We Stand; Where Britain Goes. We Stand; Where Britain qualifications, no ifs or buts, in our loyalty to Britain" is an expression of political immaturity which might have been understandable in the case of a colony newly granted self government
Moreover, it is an immoral doctrine, if the British Government performs a morally wrong action, New Zealand is committed to unqualified support. Or does Mr. Holland believe that the British Government—any British Government—is incapable of any morally wrong actions
The standpoints of the correspondents supporting intervention ranged from an advocacy of the classical prescription send the gunboat up the rivers [unclear: fnd] cow the Wogs with a show of force" to somewhat more sophisticated claims that the Government has spoken and we should obey; that because of ties of race, culture, etc., we should be "loyal" to Briain and support Her absolutely.
The first view considers the matter not at ail in moral terms, but purely in terms of force and power; the second exalts the state above, morality, above the conscience of the individual, and is pure totalitarianism; the third stretches the concept of loyalty so far that it almost becomes meaningless and can be used to justify almost any course of action.
The implications for the Commonwealth of unconsulted actions by member states were not considered either by Government spokesmen or editorial writers until Dr. Scholefield intervened towards the end of the controversy.
Indeed, at times, undertones of hysteria were evident (from both sides), most notably in the aftermath of the Northey broadcast. For the most part, criticism was directed not so much at what Dr. Northey said, but at the fact that he was allowed to be critical of Government actions through an institution controlled by the Government!
Russell Price.