Washington’s Foreign Policy – and Its Consequences

[p012] WASHINGTON’S FOREIGN POLICY AND TTS CONSEQUENCES It has been essential to dwell upon the real nature and the driving forces behind America’s foreign policy in order - to deal intelligently with the problems of Labour’s foreign policy. For, sadly enough, the post-war Labour govern- ments did not pursue either an independent or a Socialist course in world affairs. Its policy was so tightly interlinked with Washington’s that it was difficult to distinguish the one from the other. Actually, the initiative on the foreign field was taken by the American State Department, while Whitehall, the Cabinet and Parliament trotted breathlessly behind. Tugging at the rope around its neck, the Labour government had to limit itself to occasional protests. against © the more reckless moves of the Washington policy-makers. What is the fundamental programme of U.S. foreign policy today? It can be summarized in one phrase: world domination. And the imperialists will not hesitate to try to realize that goal by any means, including atomic assault. . By precipitating two world wars, German imperialism - sought to reorganize the European continent under its heel. Imperialist America has grander ambitions: it is bent on - subjugating the entire globe. The counter-revolutionary character of its actions and plans is determined by these objectives. The American monopolists and militarists are ‘resolved to support capitalism wherever it is in danger; to expand it under their tutelage where they can; and to restore it where it has been overthrown. _ This necessitates a three-pronged offensive on the world arena. :

[p013] 1. Contain, push back, and finally try to destroy directly the power of the Soviet Union, in order to eliminate its nationalized property and planned economy. This is the unavowed but underlying motive behind the frenzied anti-Sovietism emanating from across the seas. The Re- publican platform’s call for an end to “neglect of the Far Fast’ and the “‘negative, futile, immoral policy of contain- ment”’ expresses this urge for moré aggressive action against the U.S.S.R. 2. Subdue the colonial movements for independence, or at least keep them within limits agreeable to American interests. This explains their belligerence toward the Chinese and the Koreans and other peoples striving to escape imperialist control. 3. Curb and crush the mass movements headed by the Communists. At the same time browbeat the Socialist and Labour movements so that they do not make too great inroads upon the capitalist regime or its profits. That is why Washington looks benevolently upon the restrictive anti-labour legislation of the Yoshida govern- ment in Japan, which the N.E.C. protests against. This. is only an imitation of similar laws already enforced by the American witch-hunters. That is why most of official Washington views with suspicion and alarm any firm Socialist or anti-war tendencies in our own Labour Party. By the very nature of its aims Washington groups around itself the worst upholders of reaction in all lands: capital- ists, landlords, usurers and their despotic agents. Take a look at the company it keeps! Ex-Nazi generals, the _ Mikado and the Japanese monopolists; Franco, Chiang Kai Shek, Bao Dai, Syngman Rhee, and a dozen assorted dictators in Latin America, ee PEE On the other hand, all those affiliated with U.S. policy — are willy-nilly committed to opposition and hostility to the . US.S.R., to the countries of Eastern Europe, and to the peoples of Asia in revolt against their exploiters and oppres- sors. The N.E.C. statement says “‘close co-operation with the United States of America is vital to Britain.” But the inescapable consequence of such collaboration on the for- 10

[p014] eign field is to line up with the retinue of reaction patron- ized by Washington and to become more and more alienated from the anti-capitalist forces. _ ‘The ultimate aims of the Labour Party’s policy are peace, freedom, prosperity and social justice—not only for the British peoples, but for all the peoples of the world,” says the opening sentence of the N.E.C. statement. These are splendid words. But how can they be realized with such a crew? All these “ultimate aims of the Labour Party’s foreign policy’’ are incompatible with the imme- diate aims of Washington, which the measures in the docu- ment substantially support. And they are equally incom- patible with the ultimate capitalist aims which are not peace but war; not freedom but extension of servitude; not prosperity but poverty; and not social justice but the perpetuation of inequality and oppression.