7} a TT TWAT

2 er

British view of Bermuda conterence

U.S. policy to force allies’ a

By IVOR MONTAGU

LONDON

Sir Winston Churchill is going
this month to Bermuda to meet
President Dwight Eisenhower. He
has expressed the hope that their
meeting will lead to -“something
more important.” :

Exultation would be premature.
Indeed it may be entirely wis-
placed.

To point this out is not to un-
derestimate the significance of the
vast world-wide response to the
parliamentary speeches of Sir
Winston Churchill (his statement
on May 11, “I believe that a con-
ference on the highest level should
take place between the leading
powers without long delay”) and
Clement Attlee, leader of the
Labor Opposition.

Or the resolution of the French
Chamber Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee.

Or the declarations of Prime
Minister Nehru of India (the Work-
ing Committee of the Indian Na-
tional Congress stated: “We earn-
estly hope negotiations for an
armistice and a peaceful settle-
ment in the Far East will soon
come to a successful conclusion.”
and the three Scandinavian prime
ministers.

Or the press applause in Britain,
the hope leaping suddenly in a
myriad breasts.

Or the foam on the mouth of
Senator McCarthy.

Nor does it indicate a narrow
and ungraciously sceptical atti-
tude towards Churchill.

It is simply a facing of. facts.

x Te ot ae

Who initiated the Bermuda
move? :

Not Churchill, but Eisenhower.

Not the Churchill on the crest
of the wave, not yet dissipated, of
a sudden intensification of the
British, and world, desire for
peace—born of revulsion at the
antics of U.S. General Harrison at
Panmunjom and nourished by the
sober reasoning of Pravda.

But the Eisenhower who has not
dared to defend his officials from:
Senator McCarthy nor rebuke that
perjured braggart for his curses
against British ships.

The Eisenhower whose spokes-
man—flatly contradicting Chur-
chill—says that the meeting of
the Big Three must not be un-
derstood as implying approval
of a meeting of the Big Four.

The object of Bermuda is un-
concealed. As the London Times’
Washington correspondent put if
on Friday:

“Tt is tacitly admitted here that
the main purpose of the Bermuda
meetings will be to iron out dif-
ference within the free world, not-
ably about Far Eastern policies.”

The brashness and blatancy of
U.S. policy has exhausted and dis-
persed the illusions of millions
who hitherto accepted, or at least
endured, the policies of Dulles
and the deeds of the Pentagon.

Reflecting this disillusionment,
the leaders of the countries hither-
to obediently satellite to the U.S.
are already and openly voicing
differences. These rebels must be
brought to heel.

This is the U.S. policy:

In respect to Korea, Sir Winston
Churchill must be dragged, a
muzzled captive, behind General
Harrison;

The objections to an intensified
blockade of the countries desiring
to, trade with People’s China must
be waived; as also humanitarian
nonsense about the bombing of
People’s China and the atom
bombs; :

Britain’s insubordinate advocacy
of recognition of the Chinese Peo-
ple’s Republic must be abandoned;

jas also French objection to the

spreading of U.S. (disguised as UN)
intervention in, Laos and Viet-
nam.

The French must be bludgeoned
into suicide by at last accepting
German rearmament.

And, above all, the statesmen
‘must be induced to agree that

no talks with the Soviet Union
are possible without prior fulfil-

ment of conditions chosen pre-
cisely’ because they are known
to be impossible to fill.

The conference that so many
optimistic millions greeted as-a
real step toward peace is differ-
ently acclaimed by the New York
Times:

“Hearfening news. A wise and
well-timed move. It takes the
play away from the Russians.”

Ponder these further words of
the London. Times correspondent:

. “Although U.S. officials in pub-
lic want to overlook it there can
be little doubt that, perhaps un-
intentionally, the president’s pro-
posals .for the Bermuda meeting,
with their implied purpose of dis-
cussing outstanding -differences be-
tween the Western Powers so that
the free world can present a com-
mon front towards Russia, add to
the momentum which, since Sir
Winston Churchill’s speech, is
steadily leading the powers to the
conference table.”

This momentum is the force
of the world’s hopes.

It- has been aroused in the
hearts of the American people,
too, and that is why the McCarthy-
ites are so desperately manoeuvr-
ing.

Not without supreme timeliness
was the unanimous declaration of
the great Manchester Congress of
Action for Peace.

Welcoming the initiatives f0F
peace of Churchill and Attlee,
urging them to act further and
pledging support for such
deavors, warning us that thos?
who prefer force would be active —
and that action was needed
frustrate them, it concluded:

“We call on all men and women
whatever their political or relié
ious convictions.

“to press their demand for an
immediate end to the war in BO
rea and for peaceful negotiations
in every possible way,

“in trade unions and coopera
tive organizations, in political par
ties, in churches and chapels, #
factories, offices and mines, d
street groups, in our towns 4
villages, © d

“so that the government am
all leaders of our great count
may know that this is the W
of the people and that, in evely
sincere action for peace, they have
the countries support.”

* x * .

In the Bible there is a story of
how, when Moses was an old map
in Sinai, there was a battle W)
the Amalekites. When he ven
ened and let down his hand nis
people were defeated but when Je
hands were stayed up, the peoP
prevailed.

It is for the people,
stay up the hands of the SP
men contesting for peace.

_ eee

now, f0
jokes:

African colony on verge of upheaval

Nigerian smodel constitution’ collapses

By IDRIS COX

Forty-three Nigerians have been
killed and more than 200 injured
in clashes in Kano, capital of
Northern Nigeria. British auth-
orities have declared a state of
emergency.

Once again we have the old
familiar story of “riots.” These
clashes, which British MP’s say
were deliberately provoked by
government agents, are made the
excuse for further repression by
the British imperial authorities.

What is the background to this?

Africa is a cauldron of revolt
against British imperialist rule
and exploitation. The crisis in
Nigeria, the biggest colony in Af-
rica, swells the general movement.

The MacPherson constitution,
imposed upon Nigeria during the
protracted and undemocratic elec-
tions in 1951, has broken down. It
was described by British Tories
and right-wing Labor leaders as
a “model constitution paving the
way to self-government.”

Now it no longer hides the rule
of imperialism. In less than a
year the Nigerians have realised
that this device for exercising Brit-
ish rule must be ended.

The forces involved in the pre-
sent crisis are:

1 The National Council of’ Nig-

geria and the Cameroons
(NCNC), formed in 1944 as the
organized expression of the na-
tional movement against British
imperialist rule. Though its lead-
ers are closely associated with the
trade unions and the. working
people, their outlook is largely
that of native Nigerian capitalist
and middle class elements. Under
the leadership of Dr. Azikiwe, the
NCNC, which stands for a united
Nigeria and the ending of British
imperialist rule, has opposed arti-

ficial division of Nigeria into three
regions — East, West and North
— under the MacPherson constitu-
tion and its forerunner, the Rich-
ards constitution.

2 The Action Group, formed in

1950, which from its incep-
tion backed the MacPherson con-
stitution and division of Nigeria
into three regions. :

The Northern Elements Pro-

gressive Union (NEPU), the
progressive movement in the
north, which opposes the Mac-
Pherson constitution.

The system of elections provid-
ed under the MacPherson constitu-
tion calls for primaries followed
by a complicated system of selec-
tion by stages.

‘The only direct elections were
in Lagos, in the Western Region,
and there all five NCNC’ candi-
dates were elected with sweeping
majorities. Elsewhere, the elec-
toral system produced a majority
for the NCNC in the Western
Region, a majority for the Action
Group in the Eastern Region and
almost a monopoly in the North-

ern Region for the powerful emirs
— feudal chiefs — organized in
the Northern People’s Congress,
despite the early successes of the
NEPU in the primaries.

* * *

The present alliance of the
NCNC and the Action Group, sup-
ported by the NEPU in the North-
ern Region, is based on the limit-
ed demand for the right of the
ministers in the Central Assem-
bly to speak on a motion for self-
government by 1956.

Responding to rank-and-file pres-
sure, the NCNC decided last De-
cember to oppose the constitution
and told its ministers to resign.
They refused to do so.

So on February 4 the NCNC

in the ministers,

In northern Nigeria the powerful emirs, one of whom is

shown above, have a virtual monopoly of the assembly.

majority in the Eastern Assembly
passed a vote of “no confidence”
the executive
council and British lieutenant-gov-
ernor by 60 votes to 13. On March
1 the NCNC members’ refused to
vote for the Appropriations Bill
presented by the executive coun-
cil to finance government services.

This began the constitutional
crisis.

Using his powers under the
constitution, the British lieuten-
ant-governor cértified the bill and
declared it adopted.

The crisis spread to the Central
Assembly. The Action Group tabl-
ed a motion on March 31,. “that
this House accepts as a primary

political, objective the attainment
of self-government for Nigeria in
1956.” ;

But the House president refus-
ed to let the Action Group min-
isters speak on the motion.

Within three days the NCNC
and the Action Group (which in
the past two years had been in
bitter conflict) formed an. alli-
ance and issued a joint statement
demanding:

.' © That the motion for self-
government be re-listed.

@ That steps be taken to get
a meeting of the House of Rep-
resentatives (Central Assembly)
as eanly as possible for debating

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JUNE 5, 1953 —

‘| council and highly place
‘| Civil servants.

| the lieutenant-governor

te
the motion, among other ma

ters.

@ That Central ministers
free to speak and vote on anf
motion for self-govern™
when it comes up again.

So far, none of these demanty
has been granted. The wept
sessions of the House of Ri or
sentatives are not due 284%
several months, and gové
administration will, as USsU

in the hands of the on ritil

* * *

; dod,

After consultation 1 Lon eh
was 9

power to dissolve the Easter ist
sembly—the power did 2!
in the constitution, 2? d
powers had to be invoke:
nounced

on
This decision was an e de
May 6, together with ava would
claration that new election’ three
be held in the next “tw
months.” ind
now 80" jn

je
eee den”

Indignations is

the Northern ministers ©
opposed the motion for
ernment by 1956. e. :
Then 27 Nigerians were ye .
at Enugu, outside the East gov
sembly, when the rieutenet bys
ernor announced the
dissolution. the
All this is a symptom © sist
growing opposition to imp" (rus
rule and exploitation. j
gles have been waged rl trike:
Nigeria—the 1945 gene? c 4949
the Eenugu miners’ strike
and the United Africa
workers’ strike in Aug¥® of

; e &
Now Nigeria is 0” th

1.
another upheava pace