Against East Of Suez Policy

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31080, 8 June 1966, Page 9

Against East Of Suez Policy

Reuter—Copyright) LONDON, June 6. Every responsible section of Britain’s Parliamentary Labour Party opposed the Government’s east of Suez policy, a Labour member, Mr James Dickens, said at East Grinstead, Sussex, on Saturday.

“There is every reasonable expectation that the first meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party after the Whitsun recess will vote for a de- ■ cisive reduction in our military commitments east of Suez by 1970, including withdrawal from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf, resulting in a defence budget below £1750 million on 1964 prices,.” he said. “I very much hope that this was made clear to the Australian High Commissioner, Sir Alexandev Towner, when he saw the Prime Minister recently.” 6.7 Per Cent on Defence Mr Dickens said Britain currently spent 6.7 per cent of her gross national product on defence compared with an average of 4.7 per cent in the European Economic Community. With 450,000 men under arms, Britain had 81,000 stationed in the Middle and Near East. The armed forces of Common Market countries, at 1,650,000, were virtually all stationed in Europe. None were east of Suez. Holland and France, like Britain, had long historcial associations with South-east Asia, but no-one spoke of the need for a Dutch or French military presence there. Why, therefore, should Britain assume a unilateral defence role?

“If there is a genuine need for military bases in unsettled parts of the world, this should be an international obligation shouldered by the United Nations, who

should be immediately brought into the defence arrangements for Aden and the South Arabian Federation when we leave in 1968,” said Mr Dickens.