HISTORY, it can be revealed, does repeat itself. John Major's problems
are no different from Harold Macmillan's, whose Conservative government
in 1961 struggled with a crisis in Kuwait, doubts over Europe, fears
over immigration, and a sluggish economy.
In fact, a day spent going through the files for 1961, which were
released after 30 years spent gathering dust, is an exercise in deja vu
and frustration, proof positive of how ludicrous the British obsession
with secrecy can be.
The Kuwait crisis of the summer of 1961 was short-lived, but would
have made a fine example for preventative diplomacy 30 years later had
anyone bothered to look. It began with hints that the then Iraqi leader
General Qassim was preparing to assert Iraq's claim on Kuwait, which
prompted urgent British military preparations to reinforce the Emir, and
a preview for 1990.
The Cabinet concluded that American and Saudi support was essential;
that the British ambassador in Baghdad should warn the Iraqi government
of the military consequences of its actions; and that potentially
negative reaction from the rest of the Arab world should be anticipated
and defused.
The Royal Marines were sent ashore and the Government worried about
Russian technicians helping the Iraqis. But the Iraqis never came, and
by September the crisis had faded away. Kuwait joined the Arab League,
casting doubts on Britain's future role in the area. The Cabinet
recognised that the new political situation meant Britain might have to
rely increasingly on political methods to secure its interests.
The Government concluded ominously that, although oil interests were
worth protecting, a military presence might be unnecessary: ''In the
longer term we should weigh the value of those interests against the
future cost of being prepared to maintain Kuwait's independence by
military means.''
A more persistent concern for the Macmillan Government was the issue
of joining the fledgling European Community, then dominated by France
and its president, Charles de Gaulle, a fierce opponent to UK
membership.
The Cabinet felt that public opinion was in favour, but worried that
sentimental attachment to the Commonwealth and British agriculture could
easily be aroused, and warned that ''in the Conservative Party this
could evoke strong emotional reaction.'' The Cabinet even heard fears
that membership could pose a threat to national sovereignty.
Macmillan saw the European debate as part of the wider context of the
worsening struggle between East and West. He told the Cabinet that this
''secular struggle'' could eventually undermine and weaken the
Commonwealth, whereas British membership of the EC would strengthen the
West against communism.
In his way stood de Gaulle. Macmillan sought to enlist the help of the
recently-elected President Kennedy to persuade de Gaulle, and even went
so far as to offer the French access to British nuclear technology in
exchange for favourable consideration. De Gaulle was unmoved, but this
did not deter the Cabinet from agreeing to enter into negotations with
the EC in July.
Immigration also preoccupied the Government. In May Viscount Kilmuir,
the Lord Chancellor, told the Cabinet of a ''startling increase in the
number of coloured immigrants'' which could bring the total for 1961 to
200,000. Unless action were taken, he warned, Britain could be faced
''in the space of a few years with a colour problem approaching that of
the US''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article