The Passing Show: The Eternal Triangle (1952)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Eternal Triangle

The attitude of the United States over the Anglo-Persian oil dispute is instructive in view of the protestations of everlasting friendship and alliance which regularly emanate from leading politicians and businessmen in both Britain and America. The British capitalist case is simple. Persia, says the British Government, has stolen the plant and machinery and oil belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and has gone back on the Concession of 1933, by which Persia gave permission to the Company to work its oil. If you believe in the sanctity of private property, this case is unassailable.

Pandering to the Natives

But in spite of the natural attraction of such an attitude to a great capitalist power like America, and in spite of the “ties of blood” which are supposed to connect the two “Anglo-Saxon Powers,” Britain and America are far from being in agreement about the problem. If blood is thicker than water, then oil is thicker than blood. For America wants to secure for itself the valuable Persian supply of oil, and at all costs it wants to prevent it falling into Russian hands; and in order to attain these objectives, it is prepared to disregard the feelings of British capitalists, and even the prized theory of the inviolability of private property. However, America does not want to be too open about its aims. After all, Britain has an important place in American plans for the next war as an unsinkable aircraft-carrier, and so far the natives have been remarkably friendly. There are 30,000 American airmen in Britain, plus anti-aircraft forces and army engineers—easily the largest foreign force ever stationed in Britain in peacetime. Yet Britain has been most deferential in her treatment of these foreign armed troops. For example, members of the American armed forces accused of any crime in Britain are prosecuted in American courts; a concession which Britain herself has not been able to obtain for her own troops in Japan, as the case of the sailors at Kobe emphasised. 

In these circumstances, the Americans do not want to be too blatant in their coercion of the British over Persian oil.

#    #    #    #

Iron Hand

But although for these reasons the Americans are wearing the velvet glove, the iron hand is still there beneath. Her oilmen have been beating a path to the door of Dr. Mossadeq, the sworn enemy of the British. Mr. Alton Jones, director of the U.S. Cities Service Oil Corporation, has been touring Abadan and other oil centres, from which the British were expelled, accompanied by representatives of the National Iranian Oil Company and the Persian Government, which expelled them. On September 4th he was said to have “submitted a report to the Prime Minister discussing the possibility of a resumption of oil flow from Persia.” Four days later the American oil buyers Mr. Richard Nelson and Mr. Gerald Waldron, who earlier this year signed a contract agreeing to buy three million tons of Persian oil every year for five years, arrived in Teheran; it was reported that they handed over £70,000 as a first instalment. And it seems unlikely that American businessmen would part with that much money unless they were pretty sure that the American Government would support them against British capitalism which is at present maintaining a virtual embargo on the export of oil from Persia.

#    #    #    #

Truman first, Churchill second

In order to put a better appearance on things, America joined with Britain at the end of August to submit new proposals to Persia. The Note was signed by Harry S. Truman and Winston S. Churchill in that order, and this is symbolic of the order in which the interests of British and American capitalism are consulted in the proposals. Seldom has British capitalism lost so much prestige in the course of a single short statement. For in the Note;

1. Britain accepts the fact of nationalisation, that is of the “theft” by Persia of British capitalist property.
2. It is suggested that the question of compensation be submitted to the International Court of Justice, which has already, in July, refused the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s appeal that it should decide the question of the ownership of the oil, saying that the matter lay outside its jurisdiction.
3. It is agreed that the International Court shall also take into consideration the Persian claims in respect of the revenue it has lost as a result of its action in nationalising its oil.
4. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company offers to buy the oil which was produced under its management, by its technicians, and is now stored in what were formerly its own tanks in Abadan.
5. The British Government promises (if Persia accepts these terms) to relax restrictions on exports to Persia and on Persia’s use of sterling; and the American Government promises an immediate gift of ten million dollars to Persia.

But Dr. Mossadeq, evidently believing that if America could force Britain to make such sweeping concessions, he will be able to get anything he asks for, has replied making even more demands.

#    #    #    #

Jackals

What can be said of the undignified role played by the British Conservative Government in this affair ? The Tories came to power after an election in which all of them, but particularly their leader Mr. Churchill, made grandiloquent and bombastic speeches promising to lift British capitalism again to a position of power and leadership in world affairs; and in the event, the realities of power have forced Mr. Churchill to play the jackal to the Americans just as much as Mr. Attlee ever did. There is now no apter phrase to describe the leader of the British Tories than that which he himself once used to jibe at Mussolini—“this sawdust Caesar.”

#    #    #    #

Cause and effect

So many people have been trying their hands recently at suggesting new reasons for war that it seems to have become almost a new kind of parlour game. The main suggestions are fairly well known. Wars break out, it is said, because the other side have always been aggressive. Others say the last peace treaty was too strong, or was not strong enough. Or perhaps you prefer the view which sees the Russians, or the Americans, as inspired by the Devil, and thinks of Moscow, or Washington, as merely branch offices of Hell. There are even those who think we have a lot of wars nowadays because it was forecast in the Bible (this being the view so far as the writer understands it, of the Jehovah's Witnesses). Again, there are the sporting reasons—wars break out because Hitler, or Stalin, never learnt to play cricket in his youth, or because the rival statesmen have never shot grouse together in Scotland (see last month’s Socialist Standard for an elucidation of this interesting new theory).

#    #    #    #

He said Hello, but it sounded aggressive

One of the most remarkable of recent suggestions was made to a hall-full of sober scientists at the Belfast meeting of the British Association. The Dally Herald (5-9-52) reported it like this;

“Dr. P. L. Richardson, a Scottish research worker, has spent twelve years studying the relationship between language and war. And, he said, he found there was ‘something bellicose' associated with the Spanish language, and that those who spoke Chinese were likely to be more pacific."

We must certainly give the learned doctor credit for disinterestedness. That is to say. he has made no attempt to square his conclusions with known facts before presenting them to the public. His examples were unfortunate. Spain, for all its bellicose language, is one of the few European countries which managed to keep out of both World Wars. As for the "more pacific" China, it has scarcely known a year's peace since the Revolution of 1911. The internal quarrel between the Communists and the Kuomintang was only patched up in order that both factions could fight the Japanese. Hardly had they been defeated than the Chinese were at each other's throats again. And no sooner had the Communists thrown Chiang Kai-Shek off the mainland than they were in Korea fighting the Americans.

It surely doesn't need twelve years' research in order to perceive that wars are fought because the rulers of one state want something the rulers of another state already have, and want it so much that they are prepared to make war about it. The question of whether the rulers speak Sanscrit or Patagonian has no effect on this issue.

#    #    #    #

Quiz

Who made these remarks ?

1. "The people are faced with the choice of consuming less or producing more. 'We' have to sell 'our' goods abroad at competitive prices. If 'we’ price ourselves out of world markets ‘we’ will be creating unemployment."

Was it (A) a wealthy businessman speaking to the council of the Federation of British Industries ? or (B) a "working-class leader" speaking to the Trades Union Congress ?

2. “Wage-demands designed merely to cause unrest in trade unionists' minds, and often 'unrelated to reality' but intended only to buttress extreme political views, could be regarded only as a betrayal of union members. Without an increase in productivity, substantial wage-increases were bound to raise costs. The country's economic difficulties will not be lessened if trade unions pursue a policy which inevitably increases production costs and ‘compels' exporters to ask higher prices for their goods."

Was this (A) a Tory M.P. speaking to an audience of shareholders? or (B) another "working-class leader" speaking at the Trades Union Congress ?

3. "We will be betraying British lads at the front if we do not support rearmament."

Was this (A) General Sir Cuthbert Blimp speaking in 1901 ? or (B) a criminal lunatic on the run from Broadmoor ? or (C) yet another “working-class leader" at the T.U.C.?

#    #    #    #

Answers

You were right every time—or you would have been if you had known anything about the present day leaders of the trade unions. For the record, the proud speechmakers were:

1. Mr. Lincoln Evans, member of the General Council of the T.U.C.

2. Mr. Arthur Deakin, president of the T.U.C.

3. Mr. J. F. McDermott, delegate to the T.U.C. from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers.

#    #    #    # 

Humanity and Reason

On August 17th the following news item was reported from Hamburg by Reuters:

“Dr. Hermann Ehlers, President of the West German Lower House, speaking yesterday during the unveiling ceremony to Hamburg's 50,000 men, women and children who were killed during air raids in the 1939-45 war, said that nobody in Germany and few people in Britain had raised their voices against total warfare.

Therefore we must think of the one man who publicly protested against this kind of warfare—the Lord Bishop of Chichester, he said. 

Today our special respect is due to the lone caller for humanity and reason."

This will be news to members of the Socialist Party. Socialist speakers and writers protested many times during the war both against the war itself and against the inhumanity with which it was being conducted. It seems hard now to see the credit going to a member of the Bench of Bishops, who, as a body, were among the most bloodthirsty supporters of the war. Socialists agreed that the Germans suffered under the Nazi regime but we never saw the argument that we should help to kill them off in their thousands just to prove our sympathy for them. Socialists refused to help in the murder of the German and Japanese workers, and, for that refusal, some of them spent the war years being hunted by the police. Still, we may take this opportunity of telling Dr. Ehlers that we shall be publicly protesting against total war in any third world war too. We shall be calling for humanity and reason, that is to say, for Socialism, at every opportunity we have. And we shall be opposing the slaughter of the Russians, or of any other "enemy” our rulers may select for us.

#    #    #    #

Everything in its place

Mr. Harold Wilson again underlines the difference in the attitude of the Labour and Socialist Parties to war in his latest pamphlet, "The arms programme," he says, “will have to fall into its proper place in our national priorities." So the arms programme has a proper place in our national priorities, Mr. Wilson ? Like the would-be conscientious objector, who to the question "Are you against all wars ?" replied, "Oh no—just this one," the Bevanites are not against all armaments—they just want a few less. One thousand atom bombs, say, instead of one thousand one hundred.

The proper place of the arms programme, Mr. Wilson, is in the policy of capitalist political parties, and that is where it is found. It has no place whatever in Socialist policy.

#    #    #    #

Leave it to the Boss

One man out of step at the T.U.C. was Mr. Walter Stevens, of the Electrical Trades Union, who amidst the calls for moderation and restraint in wage-claims, remarked "We shall all find when we make our wage-claims that the employers themselves will inject a sufficient modicum of restraint and we shall not have to bother."

Mr. Stevens, however, might also pass this on to the workers in Russia who suffer the same injections from his friends there.

Alwyn Edgar