British Diplomatic Oil Crisis: Contemporary Anglo-Saxon Geopolitical Rivalries in the Persian Gulf: Drawing a Lesson? Or Sir Anthony Eden‘s Delusion of Grandeur.
During
the First World War the Labour Party had already adopted the
mandate principle of the future League of Nations and also made
international control a focal point of its colonial programme. In
this there were two aims: ‘to prevent a new rivalry for colonial
acquisitions among the world powers, and to replace capitalist
exploitation by a policy of reform which would “develop backward
people” and prepare them for self-government’.54
In addition to the two
above mentioned goals, not only did the
Labour Party want ‘a detailed formulation of the mandate principle
and a well-defined system of international control; it was even more
concerned with subordinating all the colonies to the League of
Nations.’ 55 In the following years the
Labour Party demanded to extend the mandate principle to all
European colonies. However, the SFIO (French Socialist Party),
unlike the British Labour Party, was interested in assimilation and
not self-government, which was the object of the mandate policy, and
thus showed no interest in the British Labour Party’s initiatives.
Labour’s opposition to
colonial acquisition among the world powers
helped to establish a certain basis of trust between Britain and the
nationalist leaders.
This examination firmly
indicates that the Labour Party is overtly
ideological. It stresses the need for equality, equality between
classes and between races. It insists on equality of opportunity
and, even, equality or near- equality of rewards. Social persuasion
is given a very high priority by the Labour Party. It advocates an
extension of public ownership and/or control. In foreign affairs the
Labour Party is ‘far less hesitant about cutting defence expenditure
and closing overseas bases than any Conservative government is ever
likely to be.’ 56 It is ‘parochial and
fervently anti-colonial.’ 57 On the eve of
the 1951 general
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. S.E. FINER, Comparative Government,
(Middlesex: Penguin,
1970), p.165.
57. Ibid, p. 23.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177