The Passing Show: Bare-faced Cheek

No one could accuse the world’s ruling classes of consistency. The ruling class of each country is devoted to one thing, and to one thing only—the preservation of its power. Our rulers love to proclaim their attachment to high-sounding and immutable principles—but if their interests demand it, they will change their tune overnight. Recently there have been enough somersaults performed by prominent politicians to make an acrobat green with envy.

Here are some instances which occurred recently within a space of two days.

Principles v, Royalties
The ruling class of Morocco gained its independence from France some years ago. In its struggle it reiterated the right of every people to independence, the iniquity of one country holding another in subjection, and so on. More recently another former French colony in northwest Africa, Mauritania, became self-governing within the French Community. It has now decided to declare itself independent in November. One would think that the Moroccan ruling class would welcome this new step by the ruling class of Mauritania—the Mauritanians are only doing what the Moroccans have already done, and are acting on the very principles upheld by Morocco during its struggle with France. But not a bit of it! The Moroccan Government is breathing fire at the news. It has banned a Moroccan newspaper which supported Mauritanian independence, and has threatened to go to the United Nations. For the Moroccan rulers claim that Mauritania is really part of Greater Morocco. The Moroccan Government, which denounced France for wanting to hold on to its empire, is now planning an empire of its own. This despite the fact that Morocco and Mauritania have not even got a common frontier: Morocco would have to take over part of Algeria to give it access to its new province.

Why are the Moroccan rulers so eager to get their hands on Mauritania, even though they have to eat so many of their own words in the process? It’s simple. Large and very rich iron ore deposits have been found in Mauritania, and the mining of them is about to begin by the Miferma company. The royalties payable on the ore are a prize worth trying for. And what does the Moroccan ruling class care about principles, when they see a chance of rich profits from the Mauritanian iron ore?

Terrorism
Another recently independent Mediterranean state has also given an example of inconsistency. Cyprus is now self-governing: the Cypriot ruling class has taken over, having ousted the British. The Cypriot leader in this struggle was Makarios. now President of the Cyprus Republic. The struggle was carried on by terrorism, which is the name now given by a ruling class to any kind of armed internal opposition to its rule. This terrorism, which forced the British to relinquish the island, was led personally by Grivas, Makarios’s close ally in the struggle. But Makarios, having won his battle through terrorism, has now turned against it. He recently appealed for all guns and ammunition to be handed in to the authorities, and said: “I am not prepared to tolerate any kind of terrorism.” Terrorism having made him President of Cyprus, Makarios no doubt now sees that he had better deny any opponents of his the use of the same weapon.

Free competition
The American Government is worried about the high tariff wall with which the six European “Common Market” countries propose to surround themselves. The U.S. delegate to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade conference said recently (The Guardian, 2/9/60):

“Whatever serves unduly to insulate the community market from the competition of world prices is out of harmony with our common GATT objective for the expansion of international trade. . . . The system will work to the serious detriment of the US and other third country suppliers — in fact, to the community itself.”

When it is to their advantage, the United States government supports “the competition of world prices.” But at home, it has a different policy. When big new projects are opened to tender, any foreign firm competing is handicapped from the start. Several British firms have recently found that although their tenders were the lowest for American projects, it was an American firm that got the contract. Which all goes to show that any capitalist country’s government must look after its own capitalists first. And in the process, as in this case, it must often speak with two voices—one for home and one for foreign consumption.

Mandates
Mr. Louw, the South African Foreign Minister, is concerned about the threat by stevedores and dockers in Tanganyika to boycott all South African goods. He protested to the British High Commissioner in South Africa that Britain, as the mandatory power, had obligations to ensure “freedom of transit and navigation and complete economic and commercial and industrial equality.”

For the South African government to quote the League of Nations mandate in support of its protest must have called for nerve of the highest order. For South Africa itself was given a mandate by the League of Nations — the mandate over what had been German South-West Africa. After the second world war it incorporated South-West Africa into its own territory. To all protests it replied that the League of Nations had ceased to exist, and that its mandates had ceased to exist with it. Therefore it no longer had any obligations to help the inhabitants of South-West Africa to self-government, and indeed was entitled to grab the whole country for itself. The question of South-West Africa has been raised over and over again in the United Nations, and on each occasion the South African government has denied absolutely that a League of Nations’ mandate could any longer have any validity. And now the South African government itself has appealed to a League of Nations’ mandate in support of its protest over Tanganyika!

It seems that to be a minister or a government spokesman in the modern world, the prime necessity is bare-faced cheek.

A. W. E.