BACK-SEAT DRIVERS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 37, Issue 937, 26 July 1957, Page 24

BACK-SEAT DRIVERS

| Extracts from a recent commentary | on the international news, broadcast

by

Main National

Stations

of the

NZBS

| WONDER whether too much im"portance is not given to the kind of change that has been announced [in Russia] this week. Of course, when political power is highly concentrated, as it is in Russia, and when the country concerned is one of the world’s biggest powers ... it is natural that any changes in the ruling group should excite great interest and speculation. The speculations, I have noticed, often differ, but they often manage to agree in one re-spect-they often turn out wrong. So often the wish is father to the thought. The wish, of course, is that the Soviet’s ruling group are fighting among themselves, and that the disintegration of the regime has begun or has even reached an advanced stage. Such speculations in the past have been proved idle by events. The Soviet regime over the years has had a high degree of stability. What has happened now may be no more than that the majority have found, for various reasons, that they are unable to work with Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and Shepilov, so they have been thrown out. This sort of thing happens occasionally in democratic countries, but the throwing out process is generally more polite. The ejected one may resign on account of ill-health, or it is announced they are returning to private

business, or-it has happened-they may be elevated to the House of Lords. But in Russia when someone has to go it’s likely to be announced that he was really a villain. . . This time ‘the accusations made against the departing Ministers are not as melodramatic as usual. If they are to be believed, and they certainly appear plausible, the offence . . . consists in having no faith in the general line of policy and in doing what they could to get it altered. The general impression one gets is that they are stick-in-the-muds, and the majority can’t bear with them any longer. Well, it may be true. . . . But’ it is not necessarily a sign of instability; it may be, I suggest, evidence of stability, evidence that the majority are united and feel that even a formerly powerful figure like Molotov can be thrown out without rocking the boat. Anyway, .they’ve gone and apparently they’re not going to be liquidated. This at least shows that what may be called the amenities of politics in Russia have improved a little.

The really important question to the outside world ... is whether the change portends any alteration in the Soviet’s foreign policy. I see nothing yet to suggest that it does. I think Khrushchov and Co. have got rid of four back-seat drivers. The new line of amiability and sweet reasonableness will continue, but, remember, it wasn’t amiable and sweetly reasonable in Hungary last November. *& we *

THE COMMONWEALTH

‘THE Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ talks are over and the communiqué is published ... The criticism applied

to similar communiqués in the past is likely to be repeated. One is reminded of Calvin Coolidge’s reply when, on returning from church, he said that the minister had preached on the subject of Sin. Asked what the minister had said about sin, Coolidge said,

"He was against it." Well.

the communiqué from the Prime Ministers’ conference isn’t locanic-it has a good many words-but it doesn’t take (continued on next page)

us very far. Yet I wonder whether this | kind of criticism isn’t misplaced. . . ) It is a wonderful thing that from the | tremendous civersity of the modern Commonwealth there emerges as much unity as does emerge. Bear in mind also that every member country of the Commonwealth values these conferences. No-body-except perhaps South Africadoubts that it is worthwhile attending them. Perhaps we instinctively look to such a conference for resounding declarations of belief or intention-but we don’t get them. But are resounding de-clarations-unless, of course, they are going to be followed by action-of much use? May we not think there is much greater value in the quiet, unpublicised talks of our Commonwealth’s leaders than in the feverish oratory and the striking of attitudes which are characteristic of the United Nations? Of this latest conference we may feel glad, as our own Mr Macdonald has said, that there is just the same degree of Commonwealth understanding and cordiality as there was before the Suez affair. In Mr Macdonald’s words, "There was no rancour or animosity by anybody." When that can be said of other international conferences we'll be a long way further along the road... The Conference unanimously agreed that Malaya . .. will become a full member of the Commonwealth-the tenth. Do we pause to think how rapidly the Commonwealth has changed? When Malaya becomes a member five of its ten members-half-will be countries which have become independent since the war. Of the five, four are Asian and one African. It is important to note also that Malaya will have a Head of State, who is to be a Sultan-a Malay, with a Malay title. The Melays are in the majority, but not by very much. There’s no doubt they want to maintain political ascendancy, and I wonder how this cesire can be reconciled with the efforts which are being made to make every Malay and every Chinese think of himself as a Malayan citizen. It’s a great experiment, and it’s important that, in any way we can, New Zealand should help it to succeed. We will be helping by sending a battalion of troops, but every man in it will have to be an ambassador as well as a soldier. Never has it been so important as now that Europeans in Asian countries should command respect by their personal conduct, by which I mean not merely decent behaviour, but political understanding and human sympathy. If our battalion does as well as the S.A.S. unit now in Malaya we'll have reason to be proud of it. |

E. V.

DUMBLETON

July 6, 1957. |.