The Manchester Guardian and the Suez Crisis

[p008] The Manchester Guardian and the Suez Crisis (A Study of “Liberal” Journalism in the Imperialist Epoch) Gracchus “In times of crisis people have to declare where they stand.” Editorial “Manchester Guardian”, 10.11.56.* Tue Suez events revealed fundamental divergences of opinion between the American and British ruling classes, and between various sections of the British rul- ing class itself. These divergences illustrate in the clear- est manner, and for all to see, the insoluble dilemma now confronting Imperialism. The capitalist class does not readily wash its dirty linen in public. That it has recently been compelled to do so is symptomatic of the profound crisis it has now entered. These differences of opinion were dressed up and presented as questions of “principle”, “morality” and “respect of law”. They were in fact nothing of the kind. They reflected different and at times conflicting sec- tional interests and different appraisals of the forces to be ¢ontended with. Different assessments were made of the strength of the still developing colonial revolu- tion, of the mood of the masses in the advanced capitalist countries, and of the severity of the internal crisis now confronting the Stalinist bureaucracy. Some judged this crisis severe enough to have rendered Stalin- ism incapable, for a while, of effective action in its own interests. From these varying estimates there arose different strategical and tactical conclusions as to what could be done, what could be “got away with’, which risks were worth taking and which were too great, be- cause they were liable to aggravate and accelerate the whole crisis of Imperialism and lead to uncontrollable revolutionary developments. These divergences and splits within the ruling class characterise all truly revolutionary epochs in history. The British ruling class did not embark on the Suez adventure as a united force. Certain sections, more far-sighted than others, realised the immense dangers to capitalism as a whole inherent in the im- perialist aggression and did everything in their power to alter the policy of the Eden administration, both before the outbreak of military operations and during the brief period of “armed conflict”. It would be a gross over-simplification of the Marxist method to imagine that in periods of crisis the capitalist class acts homo- geneously and with a fully thought-out programme. Under stress different sections of the ruling class achieve varying degrees of insight into the basic inter- ests of the class as a whole. Some sections prefer to remain patiently in the frying-pan, others to leap boldly out into the fire! Of the organs of “enlightened” capitalist opinion, none opposed the Suez adventure with more vigour and consistency (or with a better realisation of the ultimate class issues involved), than did the Manchester * All quotations in this article are taken from the Manchester Guardian, except where some other source is specifically indicated. 37 Guardian, a liberal newspaper with an international reputation for accuracy, sober judgment, sophistica- tion and a humanist, principled outlook on world affairs. For its highly critical attitude of the Govern- ment’s actions throughout the crisis, the Guardian earned the implacable hatred of the jingoist Tory press and of large strata of the Tory party. The short-sighted, blinker-wearing, my - country - right -or- wrong (my- grandmother-drunk-or-sober) variety of Tory now becomes quite hysterical at the mere mention of this journal. After the fiasco, when scape-goats were being sought and recriminations were being bandied about, certain Tory blimps made heated complaints in Par- liament because the B.B.C. in its press reports had had the audacity to broadcast regular excerpts from the Manchester Guardian. Yet all this wrath and fury was in fact quite unjustified. Journals such as the Guardian, by their agitation, contributed much to a solution of the crisis being found within the framework of capitalism, however unstable and tem- porary this compromise may prove to be. But it is no doubt too much to expect of certain sections of the capitalist class that they will ever understand how they were saved despite themselves. It has recently been reported that the Manchester Guardian is being increasingly read by serious minded young people, many of whom are taking an intelligent interest in politics for the first time. The circulation of the paper has been steadily increasing in recent years. To many, the vigorous campaign conducted by the Guardian against Eden’s war will have appeared com- mendable in every way, an echo to their longing for principled politics, an escape from the stench of jingoism and hypocrisy that emanated from other organs of the capitalist press, a reflection of their radical outlook on world events. It is all the more necessary to submit the policy of the Manchester Guardian over the crucial days, to ruthless scrutiny and analysis. “In times of crisis people have to declare where they stand”, proclaimed the Guardian on 10.11.56 (re- ferring here, it is true, to the Hungarian and not to the Middle-Eastern events.) Marxists have long been aware of the truth of this statement. Let us examine, in its light, the role of the Manchester Guardian throughout the Suez events. MILITANT MORALITY AND PRACTICAL POLITICS To the liberal intellectual of today, with his lofty ideals and his ignorance of Marxism, the world around him must seem a very peculiar place indeed, in which major events, crises, wars and revolutions occur in bewildering variety and unpredictable sequence. Social forces (imperialism, the colonial revolution, the pro- letariat, the Stalinist bureaucracy) face one another on the world arena, each with its interests and historic-

[p009] ally determined objectives. To the bourgeois liberal the events resulting from the confrontation and struggle of these forces appear as so many unforeseen and regret- table occurrences, if not as so many acts of God! The fantastic errors of judgment displayed by the Manchester Guardian during the earliest phase of the Suez events illustrate this quite clearly. On 30.10.56, after Israel had invaded Egypt—but before the Anglo- French ultimatum—the Guardian wrote: “From the tone of the statements by the Western Powers, it is evident that they are facing the possibility that they may have to act under the tripartite declaration.”* The particular Liberal responsible for this gem was so blissfully un- aware of the facts of political life that he could honestly imagine British Imperialism intervening on the side of Egypt, in other words siding up with the Arab masses against its own child, Israel! On the following day we were treated to another gem. The ultimatum had been delivered. The Manchester Guardian wrote: “Israel will be wrong if it supposes that there could be any collusion between itself and Western forces which may be sent to occupy the canal, so that they would in practice (though in disguise) act together in holding down the Arabs.” (31.10.56.) This warning was given by the paper which a fortnight later achieved world- wide notoriety for its denunciation of the Anglo-French- Israeli collusion. Serious students of politics must try to find an answer. What are the origins of this monu- mental disorientation? Why are these conclusions so like boomerangs as to reveal their authors in all their ingenuous ineptitude? Why this utter failure to appreciate the nature of the world in which we live? It appears that in the field of political analysis militant morality is no substitute for Marxist method. The Manchester Guardian is not an utter babe in the political wood, however, and its moralising is at times diluted with a certain amount of enlightened self-interest. The disastrous possibilities confronting imperialism soon became so obvious that they were realised even by the political luminaries of liberalism. Bulganin had threatened the dispatch of volunteers to Egypt. Quickly, a United Nations force behind which Imperialism might shelter! “There is no time to be lost,” the journal urged. “It (the Soviet Union) may be willing to let its men fight Britain and France, when in the eyes of the world these two countries are grossly in the wrong, but it may hesitate to let its men become embroiled against a United Nations force.” (8.11.56.) The much vaunted morality of the Manchester Guardian wears a little thin when concrete problems are met. Having denounced the “abominable” aggression as “an act of folly” and “utterly immoral”, we might have expected that no steps likely to be pre- judicial to its victim should be advocated. However, bourgeois morality has great elasticity. For instance: “Pressure equally will have to be put on Egypt and the Arab states to accept United Nations mediation” (5.11.56). To dispel any doubts as to the nature of such pressure: “The main burden must rest with the United States which has military forces in the Mediter- ranean available for backing up a United Nations de- mand” (5.11.56). And the military objectives of these * i.e. the declaration of Britain, the U.S.A. and France that they guaranteed the demarcation lines between Israel and Egypt existing at the time of the 1948 Armistice-—(Editors). 38: High Priests of morality? “Possibly the solution might be to treat the whole territory between the Canal and the truce line as a demilitarised zone” (3.11.56). Thus the forces of Moral Law were not to patrol the air and seas of the Eastern Mediterranean, they were not mobilised to prevent the impending imperialist land- ings in Egypt, nor were they to be _ stationed in the territory of the aggressor! The military “solution” advocated by the moralisers was for the victim of imperialist aggression to “demilitarise” 100 miles of her territory. Is this really very different from the plans of those whose “abominable” aggression was “utterly immoral”? Does imperialism cease to be imperialism when it is advocated by a liberal? In the field of economic theory the liberals have lauded “free trade” and denounced “imperial prefer- ence” for several decades. When the class realities of the Suez events caught up with them however, it was Imperialism they were found to have their money on! THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN AND U.N.O. Mankind emerged from the Second World War longing for peace and freedom from all forms of op- pression. The aspirations and hopes of the masses were however canalised away from the revolutionary social- ist solution of their problems. In its stead was fostered a false utopia, the idea that peace depended on the creation of a really “representative” international body, some kind of “supra-national” authority, such as the United Nations. The myth was assiduously pro- pagated that this organisation, dominated by the capi- talist powers could, without altering capitalist property relations, by some kind of magic incantation, resolve the basic antagonisms of the imperialist epoch, ensure the independence of small nations and solve the fun- damental problem of the national economies com- peting in a world market. In a word, U.N.O. could abolish the economic processes that inexorably drive modern capitalism to war. On this common ground, in defence of this myth (and of the realities it serves to mask) they all met— the innocent and the cynic, the liberals and the labour leaders, the bishops and the bureaucrats, the pink “progressives” and the scribes of Stalinism! One does not need to be a Marxist to see through this elaborate smokescreen. A mere study of the sta- tutes of the U.N.O. should demonstrate its complete incapacity to act, except when all are agreed on the action to be taken. None of the Great Powers would have joined the body were it not for the “veto” pro- visions and for the “vital interests” escape clause. Lenin characterised the League of Nations, the prede- cessor of U.N.O., as a “thieves kitchen”. The young Soviet Republic would have nothing to do with it, de- nounced it as a monstrous hoax and boldly proclaimed that as long as capitalism remained, international dis- putes would be settled by force or the threat of force. Today the thieves are more numerous (the Stalinist bureaucracy has joined the club), the loot more abun- dant, but the same disreputable horse-dealing goes on. The record of U.N.O. is impressive—impressive enough, one would have thought, to open the eyes of. anyone really interested in seeing, of anyone without a vested interest in the propagation of the myth. A

[p010] long and bloody trail of imperialist interventions has marked the decade following the end of World War II: Madagascar, Indo-China, Malaya, Kenya, British Guiana, Algeria and Cyprus. U.N.O. does not and cannot intervene because it is the tool of the imperialist powers, the puppet-show of which they pull the strings, their own special creation, their personal contribution to the miystification of the masses. When the U.S.A. ruthlessly over- threw the democratically elected popular government of Guatemala, U.N.O. scarcely raised a protest. Its helplessness is, however, curiously selective. U.N.O. intervened (action at last!) to suppress the revolutionary movement of the Korean people seeking reunification. Then, to crown its achievements, U.N.O. intervened at Suez—to extricate and bail out two of its senior mem- bers who in their old age had gone on a spree (to show their virility) and had only succeeded in ending up in the dock! With such a record, can there really be any doubt that U.N.O. is but the fig-leaf of Imperialism? The Manchester Guardian is well-known as one of the main disseminators of U.N.O. mythology. The journal attacked the Government vigorously for hav- ing flouted U.N.O. But it was not only outraged morality that lay behind its protests. Some of its comments re- veal other preoccupations. For instance: “To much of the world they (the British and French Govern- ments) will appear to have seized upon the shallowest excuse to reoccupy the canal zone, as they wanted to do weeks ago” (31.10.56). They wanted to reoccupy the Canal Zone! They did it, with only the shallowest of excuses, and they did not even have the decency to disguise the act with the usual dose of double-talk. This will never do! People might even start thinking that capitalist governments act in accordance with what they believe to be their economic interests—as old-fashioned Marxists used to claim. Ah! if only things had been managed a little more skilfully! “Our troops and aircraft might still have had to fight but they would have been fighting on behalf of the United Nations... The United States would have been at our side” (2.11.56). The myth had been rudely shattered. Quickly, the Guardian sought to repair it! “That Britain and France ought to withdraw when replaced by the United Nations force is evident. If they do not, the international force will not be regarded by either side as impartial. It will start with a soiled reputation” (8.11.56). But the truth will out. ‘The British and French Governments ...have used war as an instru- ment of policy, in direct defiance of their promises in the United Nations Charter. In the process they may prove to have destroyed the United Nations ...and to have left themselves with no moral basis for future policy” (2.11.56). In other words Eden’s crime was that he made the whole elaborate, legalistic and moral superstructure of U.N.O., built up over the years to obscure the real nature of capitalist Great Power poli- tics, tumble down like a pack of cards. This was the unforgivable sin. The Manchester Guardian shrieked its outraged virtue. But the cry was not “Down with im- perialism!” It was “Give me back my Fig Leaf!” “OPPOSING” THE WAR In the earliest phase of the military intervention in Egypt, one of the major objectives of the Manchester 39 Guardian was to mobilise, against the Eden govern- ment, the more far-sighted sections of liberal and con- servative ruling class opinion. Of the various bourgeois journals that were lukewarm or frankly frigid to the Government’s policy, it alone attempted to initiate some kind of campaign of active protest on the issue. This it did in a whole series of censorious and moralising edit- orials. It also reported in considerable detail the oppo- sition to the military intervention of various religious and academic bodies and did its utmost to foster the growth of minority opinion within the Tory party itself. When such minority opinion assumed significant pro- portions—after the conclusion of the cease-fire—the Guardian reported these developments in full. A few quotations will illustrate their method. “The Government appears to hope that by shock tactics it will bring the Arab world to heel, scotching any further thoughts of nationalisation. Perhaps so; more prob- ably not. The Arab League, including Iraq, has pledged support to Egypt. If Egypt is attacked, all our oil may be cut off. The Arab countries may not back down. The stopping of supplies, and hence of payment, will hurt them at first; but in the long run Russia and Eastern Europe and the new Asian countries can provide an alternative market, and in the short run Britain will be worse hit. War is not the way to make our oil secure; it is the way to open the whole Middle East to Russian domination. In short, what will the Government’s policy cost? A damaged American alliance, a broken Com- monwealth, the waste of many British and Egyptian lives, economic isolation of Britain and France or the end of the United Nations, no oil, and an open door for Russia in the Middle East. Sir Anthony will have made Britain truly great” (31.8.56). One could hardly expect a clearer statement of the predicament of the capitalist class. Later, when the war faction of the Tory party had obtained the upper hand, the paper was no less explicit: “The Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt is an act of folly, without justification in any terms but brief ex- pediency” (31.10.56). “They (the British and French Governments) have acted in a rash and precipitate fashion” (31.10.56). “The immediate risk is that they may have let loose an unlimitable explosion” (2.11.56). “The Anglo-French action has set off — even sooner than was expected — the next in a chain of disasters. International anarchy spreads like the plague” (2.11.56). “At some time in the future there will be reparations to pay and atonement to be made” (2.11.56). “The cost will have to be paid for years to come and it will be heavy... in the eyes of free Asia and of uncommitted peoples throughout the world the worst things ever said about Western Imperi- alism have proved true” (6.11.56). Without actually calling a spade a spade, could the fear of the proletarian revolution and its main ally the anti-imperialist strug- gle of the colonial masses be expressed more clearly? The campaign of “opposition” to the war was directed at a particular section of the community and the arguments used were undoubtedly the ones most likely to have appeal. It is not aitogether surprising that this particular emphasis led to a rather grotesque presentation of certain aspects of the news, especially obvious in relation to the storm created by the Gov- ernment’s policy. One is reminded of the effect of cer- tain distorting mirrors where the part held up for ex-

[p011] amination assumes altogether disproportionate dimen- sions. In the Guard’an’s campaign, a perplexed profes- sor appeared worth any number of protesting proleta- rians, and the bleatings of a disturbed bishop or two deemed to equal the voices of a few million colonial workers demonstrating against imperialism. On 2.11.56 for instance the paper titles in large script the blood-curdling news‘ that “Eighty Oxford Dons attack Government Actions.” This is followed by a pathetic account of the “anguish of mind” of a Con- servative treasurer in Manchester who found the Gov- ernment’s attitude “completely indefensible”! The article proceeds to report student demonstrations in various parts of the country, the outraged protests of the violated United Nations Association, the fact that the British Council of Churches was “disturbed” by the “moral weakness” of Britain’s position, and con- cludes with brief reference to some protests from working class organisations. The same issue of the journal devoted several paragraphs to the heckling the Foreign Secretary was submitted to at a Conservative rally at Watford. More important: “There was no great cheering or gesture of support from the thousand Tories present.” On 3.11.56 the paper reported further widespread agitation in the Universities, resulting in scuffles in various places—and also the participation of various groups of Arab students. The Methodist Conference, it appears, “recognised the complexity of the situation” but “deplored the bombing of cities”. There had been protests from Christian Action “and many other bodies including Trade Unions”. It is true that in the same issue, in small print on page 7, are hidden a few lines to the effect that crowds in Ceylon, led by members of Parliament, had demonstrated outside the office of the British High Commission shouting “Stop this murder” —and that at Bahrein three thousand people had marched through the streets and that the crowds had set fire to Government premises. By 5.11.56 the campaign led by the Manchester Guardian had reached its climax. The editorial pro- claimed: “The present Prime Minister and his Cabinet must be removed...A complete change of Govern- ment is essential”—Sir Anthony’s policy had “been hideously miscalculated”. (This was of course unforgiv- able!) Readers were strongly urged to let their M.P.s know their views. A list of M.P.s for each constituency was thoughtfully provided. An appeal was made “for a concerted effort, within constitutional limits, for replace- ment of the Eden Government.” Of the tremendous reverberations the imperialist aggression had in the working class movement, one finds very little. It is true that on 2.11.56 the paper proclaimed “Labour rules out use of strikes” and went on to quote the full proclamation of the National Council of Labour calling on the “British people” to bring “effective” pressure to bear on the Government “through normal constitutional parliamentary methods” and to “refrain from taking industrial action”. It also reported the statement of Sir Tom Williamson to a press conference, that the T.U.C. “will not countenance industrial action”. These pro- nouncements are described editorially as “both poli- tical wisdom and hard-headed common sense’. Lest there be any misunderstanding about what was meant by “opposing” the war and “effective” pressure, the journal stated editorially: “Trade unionists, like soldiers, will accept lawfully constituted authority and do the work that is set them” (2.11.56). The trade-union bureaucrats and the professional liberals rapidly saw eye to eye in this matter. The way they both stressed this point suggests, to those who can read between the lines, that a section of the working class was harbouring precisely such “dangerous” thoughts and was beginning to consider how genuinely effective action could be taken and to organise accord- ingly. The Guardian itself was compelled to admit this on 5.11.56. On a centre page, after being told that the cohorts of dissenting Oxford dons now numbered 350, and that according to the British Council of Churches there was “deep concern” in the country, we are finally informed that the South Wales area of the National Union of Mineworkers had called for a national con- ference of the Union “to consider what action the miners shall take to end the war on Egypt”. The paper admitted that many of the lodges were pressing for strike action. On 6.11.56 it admitted that a call had gone to the T.U.C. from the Executive of the Fire Brigades Union calling for the organisation of a gen- eral strike. On 7.11.56 it carried a single paragraph reporting what was perhaps the most significant work- ing class action in the whole period under discussion: “Labour was withdrawn from all Crawley New Town factories at 3 p.m.”, a polite euphemism to describe a political strike. Twelve hundred workers, joined by others, marched through the town and gathered in the town square to attend a protest meeting organised by the Suez Council of Action. On 9.11.56, after the con- clusion of the cease-fire, the Guardian reported the statement of the I.L.P. that “our job is to stop our own war” and its call to “all workers to be ready to take part in a general strike immediately”. These references to working class reaction were however swamped by columns of ecclesiastical expos- tulation. On November 9th, the paper titled over three columns: “Bishop calls for much more explanation”. The Pope’s appeal received due attention. All sides were being called in to lend a hand! We were even in- formed that on 9.11.56 the Northfield Council of Churches had passed a resolution “imploring the Gov- ernment and the politicians of all parties to pursue in a spirit of mutual forbearance such policies as may help to restore general confidence in the moral basis of public action.” One gets the distinct impression from all this that the force of prayer and not the threatened action of the proletariat put an end to the adventure. Which, of course, to any bourgeois liberal, must be a most comforting thought! THE ISSUE OF “CONSCIENCE” Having, for a variety of reasons, opposed the mili- tary intervention in Egypt, the Guardian got carried away by its own enthusiasm. On 1.11.56 the journal came out with an editorial labelled “Conscience” which created a minor furore. This editorial, and the reactions it produced on the journal’s readers, are worthy of study as they illustrate the extreme limits to which “Jiberal” journalism is prepared to go on certain issues which are familiar to revolutionary socialists but which

[p012] bourgeois journals seldom dare to mention. “In 1939,” the editorial in question stated, “the British went to war as a united people; they will not do so today. To thousands of those called upon to fight, the Government’s Suez policy will appear not merely inexpedient but immoral... What are they to do? A soldier cannot choose his wars. His duty, even after Nuremberg, is to obey the lawful orders of his superi- ors... many Sincere patriots will put on uniform with heavy hearts... for a number of young men the Suez crisis has suddenly converted the concept of the unjust war from an exercise in academic casuistry to a burning personal problem. Most, we must hope, will do their military duty as best they can. But for those whose feel- ings of conscience are too strong, there is a precedent for a way out. In current practice it involves court- martial, a sentence of imprisonment (3 months) long enough to entitle them to apply for registration on the roll of conscientious objectors, and finally a hearing before a tribunal. There are pitfalls along the whole course, and especially at the end, for tribunals are re- luctant to recognise what they consider political objec- tion. The farther an applicant stands from a conven- tional pacifist—preferably religious—position, the less likelihood he has of being accepted as a C.O.... Prob- ably not many people will set out along the road to conscientious objection in the present crisis. We must hope, at any rate, that they may be few; but the prob- lem exists and it is no use being blind to it...” The issue of “conscience” was considered a purely personal one. The journal conceived of opposition to the war in only the most general terms. This is made quite clear in a further editorial published the same day: “It is greatly to be hoped that the fighting will be brief and the occupation of the Canal (our italics) as bloodless as possible” (1.11.56). The next day the editorial was even more explicit: “At present we can only hope that the military action will be as swift, bloodless and, now that it has been begun, as successful as possible’’ (2.11.56). Im- perialism is on the march and however “heavy hearted” the “patriots”, the military objectives must be achieved! No hint here of revolutionary defeatism! Verbal opposi- tion? Possibly! Conscientious objection on a personal basis? Confined, it was hoped, to the “few”! Organised . Mass opposition, taking on active forms? Good heavens, no! On 2.11.56, the Manchester Guardian’s London correspondent let the cat out of the bag when he men- tioned that “a lunatic fringe had shown a desire to incite disaffection in the armed forces”. It is always lunacy, of course, to the bourgeois liberal, when a per- sonal decision having been reached, one ceases to wallow in verbiage and takes steps to translate the decision into effective action. The mere mention of the issue of “conscience” raised a storm among the paper’s readers. The editorial, however capitulatory its conclusions, was more than some could stomach. A reader in Stafford called it “an oblique flirtation with sedition”, another in Bradford “a shocking piece of work, coming pretty near to being an incitement to mutiny”. Others were more outspoken: “This scurrilous piece of writing is tantamount to an incitement to mutiny...a disgrace to British journal- ism.” “I was appalled by the seditious incitement to mutiny in the leader...” “It comes almost to the brink of treachery” piped in a further reader, dreaming no doubt of drumhead courts and executions at dawn. A further reader, doubtless on the verge of apoplexy, even accused the poor old Guardian of “inciting the British people to civil war’. The majority of those who wrote to the paper re- acted to the editorial in quite a different way however. Many protested against the journal’s half-hearted atti- tude. Special columns had to be devoted to the “Issue of Conscience”. Of the published letters, some were quite outspoken and one reader proclaimed: “In no circum- stances will I fight in this war or in any wider war which may develop from it.” Another wrote: “I fervently hope that many will refuse to fight in support of the immoral action of this government...” Yet another expressed definite surprise at the paper’s estimate and hope that the number of conscientious objectors would be small: “Why on earth do you hope this? I hope it will be very large, and will grow larger every day.” Some readers went even further: “The civilian population as a whole should refuse to participate in any kind of war service and should support those who take such a stand.” “Vast numbers should show disruptive civil disobedi- ence to bring about a non-violent reversal of the Gov- ernment’s treacherous policy.” The paper reported that at a meeting of Manchester University Labour Club “three young men from the hall got up to say that they would refuse to serve their country if recalled to the colours,” and that it had been stated that “if young men were sent out to die, they had to believe in what they are dying for”, and that the London School of Economics Student Union had passed by 243 votes to 59 a resolution stating that “in the present circum-- stances, this House refuses to fight for the Suez Canal.” This forthright response must have caught the Guardian by surprise. Opinions were being published which no capitalist journal has ever dared to voice before, in time of war—or even in time of “armed conflict’! Issues of real importance were beginning to be discussed. If the correspondence had continued for ong in this vein who knows what “dangerous” conclu- sions people might possibly have reached. Might not the political “facts of life’—familiar to Marxists for de- cades—suddenly be revealed to a wider audience? Might not the readers of the Guardian have learned that when “opposition” to war goes beyond the stage of pious platitudes bourgeois democracy tends to discard its democratic fig-leaf and reveals its fraud- ulent character, as it always does in times of crisis? No wonder the apprentice sorcerers took fright! On 12.11.56 the Editor hastily closed the discussion stating that henceforth preference for publication would be given “to letters on the situation after the cease-fire or on future policy”. THE TRAFALGAR SQUARE DEMONSTRATION During the early phase of the imperialist inter- vention, the conflict of political opinion in Britain took on an exceptionally sharp form. Scenes were witnessed in the House of Commons that had not been seen for two or three decades. But opposition to the Suez war was not confined to the parliamentary arena. Meetings were held all over the country and the struggle soon overflowed into the street. On November 5th, the National Council of Labour called upon the workers of London to demonstrate. The

[p013] rally had been well publicised and organised and, ac- cording to Aneurin Bevan, it was the largest he had ever seen in Trafalgar Square. The attitude of the Manchester Guardian to extra-patliamentary events of this kind and to the clashes between the demonstrators and the organs of the bourgeois state, i.e. with the pol- ice, is worth noting. The general atmosphere of the meeting, its massive proportions and excellent organis- ation are well conveyed. Trafalgar Square was described (5.11.56) as “packed with people who had come march- ing in columns from many parts of London ...Crowds also lined the pavements six or seven deep round the outer edges of the Square”. The militant mood of the workers also found some recognition—in phrases such as “masses of people waved banners stating: ‘Into the Canal with Eden’, ‘No War over Suez...” and 399 “sections roared in unison: ‘Eden must go’. One cannot of course expect a bourgeois journal, even a “liberal” one, to state unequivocally that this was the response of the working class to Eden’s war and that here, in the heart of London, within a few hundred yards of Downing Street, the workers were making their presence felt, in their tens of thousands, not by letters, telegrams or pious resolutions, but in a gigantic demonstration, the like of which London had rarely seen before. Nevertheless the Manchester Guardian seems to have sensed that something impor- tant was afoot. As one of their correspondents put it: “Thousands felt that they must themselves take a hand in history.” “It was a scene not to be forgotten easily.” All really massive proletarian demonstrations _ tend to have this effect on honest observers. Did the orators succeed in capturing the militant mood of the workers? In what direction was the people's anger channelled? What kind of lead was given? What parts of the speeches met with the most sus- tained and energetic applause? Alas, the Guardian is silent on these issues. It did not carry a single line of what was said at this mass meeting, at which “thous- ands were taking a hand in history”. Editorially, the meeting might never have taken place. One cannot help feeling that in the eyes of the Manchester Guardian all this agitation in the street was not quite proper and respectable. The next day, the paper doubtless had more important things to report than the utterances of presumed demagogues to “an angry mob”, led, as the police told the Guardian reporter, by “a few trouble-makers”. There was for instance a report on the soul-searchings of a resigning Tory minister, and a statement by the West Asia and Egypt Church Mission- ary Society that “Christian love can transcend and con- quer all tension”. The liberal, one must remember, is intensely concerned with the individual! One cannot but feel that this preoccupation is a little overdrawn however when thousands “taking a hand in history” are considered “an angry mob”. It is also very sad of course that the mounted police may not read the Manchester Guardian and have possibly never heard of the West Asia and Egypt Church Missionary Society and of the soothing influence of “Christian love”. The Trafalgar Square rally was notable for the massive display of mounted police. The Guardian des- cribes their action in terms that leave one in little 42 doubt as to its character: “Parts of the crowd often fled before a charging police horse...A terrified woman was screaming “Don’t kill me’”...An apparently un- conscious man was carried away “limp body, white face and closed eyes, fair hair dangling down” after “‘a quick charge by four mounted constables”. “Loud bursts of uproar” continued as “the police horses gradually broke up the thick crowds”. The paper is fairly explicit as to how this was done. The mounted police would “hit with open hands at the noisier parts of the crowd when they refused to go back”. Many arrests were made. Scotland Yard admitted that eight policemen were in- jured and that—climax of indignity—one officer had been dragged from his horse. Clearly the rally had been no tea-party of liberal intellectuals discussing Free Trade! One however looks in vain for any condemnation of the manner in which the police acted. All that one can find is an assurance that “most of them behaved calm- ly”. One might have expected a liberal journal to denounce certain of the “excesses” of the apparatus of repression. This would not have transgressed good liberal doctrine. All liberal’ journals thrive on this sort of thing. They excel in particular in denounc- ing police repression in other countries. The Manchester Guardian, for instance, had found several columns in recent weeks to report and comment on the excesses Of the French and South African police, or on the crimes of the Stalinist police apparatus. The class issues at the Trafalgar Square rally were raised in too acute a form, however, for such comment to have been considered safe. The liberals have obviously mas- tered a most difficult art; they can both live in a glass house and indulge in throwing stones. CONCLUSION It would of course be naive to expect a bourgeois journal, even an “honest” one like the Manchester Guardian, to adopt a Marxist outlook on world affairs or to advocate a revolutionary solution to the problems confronting mankind. But liberals should have the right to expect of a liberal journal a sustained and unequi- vocal defence of liberal principles. Intelligent people should also have the right to expect of a paper of this standing a rational and consistent interpretation of major events. Moreover, if “morality” and “principle” - are to have any real meaning, if they are not to dissolve into hypocrisy, humbug, or mere verbiage, then the con- clusions drawn must be pursued to their logical end. This end can be none other than effective action. The contradictions in which contemporary capital- ism enmeshes the liberal and the intellectual today were admirably illustrated by the columns of the Manchestr Guardian in the crucial weeks. Of course Marxists can see that these contradictions cannot be resolved within the framework of capitalism. But the liberal journal “solves” them with “principles” that can be turned on and off like water from a tap—with “morality” adaptable to the requirements of world imperialism—with “liberalism”, by kind permission of the organs of state security—and with “policies” it dares not carry to their logical conclusion. These are dim beacons for the serious radical youth of today.