European Diplomacy Tries = New Line-up

• Gaitskell World War II. The twists and turns of recent months; the establishment of the ParisBonn axis; the strained relations between its members and Washington; the concern in London, which is intensified by the hard bargaining around entry to the Common Market; all reveal the divisions which lie behind the facade of 'the Western Alliance'.

The real contradictions in relations between the capitalist states are becoming more and more obvious. The common front against what they call 'Communist aggression' has been accompanied by incessant manoeuvre and intrigue for a dominant position in that front.

Both Germany and France, strengthened by economic expansion, are ruled by men who look with bitterness at the special relation between London ton. They seek pendence in the of policy.

They fear between Kennedy chev and see, in nantinuad Anala dancy in the Western camp the end of any possibility of German unity and permanent second-rank status for their own countries.

Close economic ties nou between Germany and F Monopoly interests in countries on a number of come into collision with competitors in Britain.

While some French and German politicians believe that an independent nuclear striking force is indispensable, if only to prevent an Anglo-Saxon deal with Russia, others remain wholly committed to American policy. The latter are the most active advocates of European unity and accepting complete synchronization into US strategic plans.

At present they form the loyal opposition - the Social Democrats in Germany, the MRP and 'Socialists' in France. No doubt they are tied in with the State Department as pressure groups on their own governments.

The Gaitskell-Brown leadership in the British Labour Party plays a similar role. While the Macmillan government is servile enough when it comes to accepting American dictates in South-East Asia, it seeks to conserve the outward trappings of independence and even 'leadership' in Europe.

This is does through the anachronism of the independent nuclear deterrent—the last symbol of national sovereignty for those steeped in the diplomatic methods of the 19th century.

Now the Labour leaders— especially since Gaitskell's last trip to the USA-are for surrendering full control, with just a few symbols left to preserve appearances, in matters of war and peace to the President of which exists and Washinggreater indedetermination political deal and Khrushany case, in Covan naran exist rance. these issues their the United States. The idea is supported by a section of Conservative opinion.

For this school, which undoubtedly represents the shape of things to come, it is important to prevent France, Germany or any other country possessing nuclear striking striking forces of their own. The Western 'deterrent' must be solely an American affair-the rest must join a 'non-nuclear club' and hitch their fate to the Pentagon Juggernaut.

At the same time, the basic proposition that the Soviet Union is bent upon world domination is maintained, at least for popular consumption. That there are no positive signs of this, and that wherever there are strong Communist parties —whether in France and Italy or India and Indonesia-they are bastions of the status quo, are facts which are conventiently kept out of the argument. But only for the moment.

There are ample signs of sections of the ruling class, as well as of the loyal oppositions, in the capitalist countries, which are ready to come to terms with the Soviet Union.

In fact, however, these diverse trends are not agreed about the nature of those terms, so that the prospect of a deal plays its part in the jockeying for position which goes on inside, and between, these countries.

Thus, in Germany, the Kroll affair showed the existence of a 'Rapallo' tendency ready to reach an agreement with Russia on terms which would not be acceptable to Washington.

Likewise in France there may be those who hope, by reviving the Franco-Soviet pacts (made by Laval in 1935 and by de Gaulle a decade later), to reduce dependence on Western Germany which they think THE 'Financial Times' Industrial Ordinary Share index lost 11 points last week, the biggest fall for over seven months. The index is now at its lowest since October 1959.

Financial 'experts' find all sorts of reasons for the decline in this economic indicator. Favourite among them is Selwyn Lloyd's recent speech in which he gave warning of fiercer credit restrictions if there were further breaches in the Tories' 'incomes policy'.

Whatever happened behind the scenes, one thing is clear about the role of the government in the dockers' dispute. It did not speak with one voice. There were those who wanted to take a tough line and those who, for the moment, were for a policy of moderation.

The 'tough line' exponents have their echoes in the financial press. There is much talk of the limitations of democracy so far as 'the nation's interest' is concerned. There is even strong criticism of Tory policies and new recipes given for successfully repairing the economy.

One of these, is to reform the 'guiding light' policy of restricted wage increases in industry. Where labour is scarce, that is in dangerous.

It is, of course, upon such currents that Soviet diplomacy depends and, indeed, draws what strength it now possesses. Having long ago ceased to operate on lines of international class solidarity or socialist policy, it sees in the development of contradictions between the Western powers the best hope of preserving the conditions for a quiet life for the present rulers of the USSR.

The policy of the national Communist Parties, as arms of this diplomacy, talks much about the existence of a peaceloving bourgeoisie. It is upon none-too-scrupulous deals with MONDAY'S crash on the • New York stock exchange is a warning to the international labour movement and a reminder that we live in a society whose economic basis is uncontrollable.

'Wall Street Slide Puzzles Experts' , said the headlines. For, while production reaches new heights, no one could explain why investors suddenly lost their nerve.

The stock exchange is an institution where capitalists can buy and sell the right to extract profit from the labour of different groups of workers. When there is a danger that less profit is going to be made, the prices drop.

The pressure on profits which has made itself felt for some time and the fear of a coming recession, have caused a drift downward in stocks since December. On Monday, the drift 'growth' industries, attract it with higher wage rises. In other industries, presumably the mines, railways and basic services where a huge number of workers are employed, restrict wage increases to a 24 per cent maximum.

Set one group of workers against another. Favour some No golden recipes 66fff.. € £ € and discriminate against others.

Actually, the causes of stock exchange slump cannot be explained solely by the presence of credit restrictions, Selwyn Lloyd's speech or any other transitory event. They are much more deep-rooted and do not only affect the London Stock Exchange.

Share prices are declining everywhere in Europe and America. Lower and lower profit margins, not necessarily accompanied yet representative of the bastion of capitalist power and would no doubt be prepared to put into the scales Cuba, Laos, Berlin and perhaps other morsels.

The ways of diplomacy are as murky and tortuous as ever. But it should never be forgotten that foreign policy is designed to serve the state interests of the ruling stratum, not to manifest high principles.

The deep cleavage between the capitalist states and the Soviet bloc is, in fact, too wide to be permanently bridged by any treaty; but that does not make impossible even the most extraordinary line-ups and concessions on one side or the other. The present flux in diplomacy reflects all the contradictions and dangers of our epoch. on Wall Street became a tumble. Capitalists in London, Zurich, Paris, Tokyo, caught the fever.

United States industry can produce the apparatus to send a human being into space, but capitalism cannot organize this ability.

Geared to the drive for profits, this lunatic system must be eliminated if the tremendous power of modern science is to be harnessed for the benefit of mankind.

The livelihood of millions of working people throughout the world is threatened by coming changes in the economic climate. Those misleaders of labour who preached the possibility of making the profit system work must be removed if the working class is to face the new situation.

The reorganization of an international Marxist leadership is the only answer to the Wall Street panic. by falling production (certainly not in Europe, are the order of the day.

In the last decade an enormous amount of capital investment has gone into new plant, machinery and factories. Consequently though productive capacity has increased, in a competitive economy, profits as a percentage of capital employed, have decreased.

It is widely believed that the Tories can provide favourable economic circumstances for their return to government at the next election. But this viewpoint may be too naive.

Big business has had its experience of a too intensive capital expansion programme. The banks, at the moment, have complied with their special deposit obligations and have money to lend, but those capitalists who could have overdrafts for the asking are not taking them up.

There is nothing scientific about the mechanics of capitalist enterprise. It is not surprising that in the long run, profits and productivity are incompatible.