Herbert W Armstrong

Britain is going down — but in style, and with not a little flourish. That seems to be the message the news commentators relay as the pound retreats to historic new lows. To continue a theme begun last week, we present a few more articles, beginning with comments by Anthony Lewis, syndicated columnist for THE NEW YORK TIMES. Mr. Lewis reported the following in his January 25 column:

The world has got used to the decline of Britain.... What Americans and others from rich countries mostly do about Britain is cluck at its economic misfortune — and take advantage of it.... More foreigners will fly over for the Harrods sale, or buy property in London. For us it will be forever England, cozy and quaint....

Peter Jenkins of THE GUARDIAN...wrote last month about the consequences "of a decade and a half of accelerated decline." He quoted an observer of 17th-century Spain as saying that its decline had become so rapid that "one can actually see it occurring from one year to the next." Jenkins said: "We see it ourselves. We see urban dilapidation and squalor, a rotting housing stock and rusting transport facilities, shabby-looking people in filthy streets and public places, things everywhere broken or not working.”...

Economists and historians have traced the decline back to Victorian times. The rot set in, they suggest, even as the empire reached this apogee. The country emphasized glory abroad over enterprise at home. It rewarded philosophers and sneered at businessmen. The roots of the British disease, it is often said, are deep.

But the politicians of the last 20 years or so have certainly accelerated the trend.... The worst of it is the lack of a credible political alternative now. Labor has moved so far to the left... that it hardly seems a potential governing party.... Peter Jenkins has...sometimes...seen the chance for a miraculous regeneration. But last fall he took "the gloomy view that the adaptation that would be required of us, after all that has gone before, will prove too great — and that, like Venice, success will consist in managing a long, civilized and dignified demise."

An editorial in the January 20 SUNDAY TIMES of London also took stock of Britain's declining fortunes:

The rest of the world is sending us two messages, both of them profoundly depressing. First, the world's money men now seem to regard Britain as a one-commodity country. Just as if we were a Third World nation dependent on one crop, the value of sterling on the exchanges now seems to depend on oil prices: when they weaken, so does the pound. Of course, we can protest that North Sea oil accounts for less than 6 percent of our national wealth. But in international finance perception is often more important than reality.

Oil is so important to sterling because the rest of the world sees North Sea oil as about the only thing Britain has going for it. For it seems that, and this is the second message, the world's money men are beginning to realise that, even after five years of Thatcher government, the economic decline of Britain continues apace. Despite the progress that has been made (the turnaround in Jaguar cars is one of the best examples), we remain an inefficient, uncompetitive nation, afraid of new technology, uncomfortable with competition, short on business enterprise and management flair, long on appalling unions and still obsessed with class divisions which are the joke of the world.... Every so often the rest of the world takes stock of our nation, and marks sterling down....

To reduce unemployment from 3.5m to a still-too-large 2m by 1990 it is estimated that about 2.2m new jobs will be needed over the next five years — an increase in employment of 10 percent. Nothing in the recent performance of the British economy suggests it will generate anything like that number of jobs in the rest of this decade.... There are still far too many ingrained impediments in this country for business enterprise to flourish using the latest technology, free from union restrictions and the old school tie. Until the government starts to tackle these supply­ side constraints in a radical way, Mrs. Thatcher risks becoming yet another prime minister who to power determined to reverse our decline, but who was destined to fail.

The "Chunnel" — Will It Go Through at Last?

Britain's economic doldrums are partly responsible for the revival of an old idea — that of constructing a tunnel under the English Channel linking Britain with France and tying into the continental transport network. Many thousands of presently unemployed workers stand to profit, in the short run, from the project (which probably would entail a twin-bore rail link).

The idea of a Channel Tunnel (or a "Chunnel" as some call it) is further enhanced by desire on the part of some in Britain to show that the country is serious about its commitment to a "real Common Market." It thus acquires strong political symbolism. In addition, both the British and the French governments now hold a similar crucial viewpoint — that the project should be built with private capital and that the major role of both governments should be not to guarantee private risk capital but to issue a commitment that the project, once launched, would not be stopped for political reasons. The French were left hanging when Britain's Labour government, in 1975, cancelled the most recent project (there had been several previous attempts). Digging had already progressed a mile and a half at both the British and French entrances.

The idea of private financing for the "Chunnel" has acquired new favor ever since the British government decided to sell off shares in publicly-owned British Telecom. Even the government was surprised how avid British investors were to gobble up the stock issue. A January 16 TIMES of London editorial entitled "A New Link for Europe" praised the "positive enthusiasm" for a new tunnel attempt:

The atmosphere surrounding that venerable project has unquestionably changed in the last few months. For the first time, or certainly the first time in many years, the idea has captured the imagination and earned the positive enthusiasm of the British prime minister.... [Late last spring Mrs. Thatcher announced] in a joint declaration with President Mitterrand, that she recognized "the potential importance of a cross-Channel fixed link as an element in the great European transport network," and considered "that such a link would be technically feasible and financially viable." Thus question is no longer "whether" but "how."

What has changed? In one sense nothing, or nothing in the British attitude. The British position has been, ever since Mr. Crosland stopped the digging ten years ago, that the tunnel must not come at the taxpayer's expense. It is the French, long scornful of this attitude, who have come round. La rigueur is the order of the day now for government spending, even more in Paris than in London. The guarantees now being offered are political — government will not cause investors to lose their money by taking action to scupper the project — rather than financial. The private investor is being asked to put up his own money at his own risk. But, and this is a crucial difference, he is being asked — or he is going to be....

A number of factors have come together to produce this change. The solution of Britain's budget problem in the Community has made Europe in general and M. Mitterrand in particular seem suddenly more attractive. The emphasis on creating "real common market", by removing obstacles to trade endows the idea of a direct link to the continent, without the hassle of unloading and reloading or the danger of interruption by gales and fog, with an obvious relevance.

The persistence of high unemployment [has]...undeniably also lent a certain lustre to a project variously estimated as likely to provide fifty or even a hundred thousand jobs in the late 1980s, especially if it really does not have to be financed out of the public sector borrowing requirements....

And the political symbolism of a project which would literally bind this country, not just to France but to the European continent, is something should surely we should surely be able to welcome rather than shun. As evidence of our European commitment, it would carry far more conviction than any number of flags, anthems, or maroon-coloured passports [referring to the standardized European Community passport which took effect on January 1].

On the surface, Britain's economy could use a "shot in the arm" from the tunnel enterprise. But is it so good for the country in the long run? The following is repeated from a short report published in the August 1966 issue of The PLAIN TRUTH. It dealt at that time with the previous tunnel scheme (the one subsequently scrubbed in 1975):

Britain and Franee have at last agreed to build a tunnel under the English Channel!... Businessmen and ambitious generals alike have dreamed of such a tunnel since the days of Napoleon.

In 1880, a French-English combine actually started digging. But work was stopped after nearly two miles of the tunnel had been excavated. The project was revived in 1890, but to no avail. Attempts in 1906 and 1914 again proved fruitless. Each time plans were stopped cold by the British War Office. England's top generals repeatedly vetoed the scheme as a peril to Britain's island security. In today's nuclear age, however, such fears have vanished. But officials don't see the hidden danger....

God promised our countries fantastic national wealth. He promised protection from our enemies (Deut. 28:7). He settled us behind protective geographical barriers. The United States has been blessed with two ocean frontiers. The British Isles have been separated from the Continent by the choppy waters of the Channel. Even Hitler's massive air attacks in World War II couldn't subjugate Britain.

But God is about to breach the Channel gap.... Unless we repent, one third of our peoples — including millions of British — will die in nuclear warfare at the hands of a resurrected Roman Empire in Europe. After that, another third will be carried off into captivity (Ezek. 5:12). But how? The English Channel tunnel may well prove to be the primary expulsion route taken by millions of hapless Britons.... Britain's days of "splendid isolation" are numbered.

One channel tunnel project after another has fizzled down through the ages. But at last, Britain's protective moat looks like it is about to be breached.

"Chunnel" Yes, Eurostamp No

How far will the British be willing to go, however, in the cause of European unity? The "Chunnel" idea sounds good, especially to a pragmatic conservative government, but the latest unity scheme floated by a European Community committee may be a non-starter. The idea is to produce a common postage stamp for use by all ten EC countries. The most popular version of this idea advocates having a stamp depicting a map of the Community on the right-hand side, with its value in European Currency Units (ECU's) on the left, complete with the conversion rate in local currencies.

Many admit the project may have to await greater monetary harmonization and a firmer value for the ECU. Nevertheless, the reaction from Britain has been strong. Stamps in Britain have never failed to portray the head of the reigning sovereign.

A British member of the European Parliament, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, said of the plan: "I'm going to tell them where they can stick their stamps. Getting rid of the Queen from British postage stamps will reinforce the strong feeling of the vast majority of the people of Britain who are totally opposed to our membership of the Common Market." Mr. Alf Jones, deputy Labour leader in the Parliament, added: "This is another example of Euro-fanatics dreaming up crackpot schemes."

Canada's "Swiss Cheese" Defense

It is not only the United States and Britain that are on that slippery slope of national decline. The same is true of Canada. America's northern neighbor is not often in the big news of the day, but that doesn't mean it has not undergone tremendous changes in recent years. Specifically, Canada's once-proud military forces are in a virtual state of despair and disrepair, the victims of welfarism and a changed view of what Canada's role in the Western world should be.

While the new conservative government of Brian Mulroney has pledged to bolster its armed forces, the following report, entitled "Canada's Beleaguered Military Struggles to Stay Alive," which appeared in the October 19, 1984 WALL STREET JOURNAL, shows how difficult it will be to make the required changes. The article was written by Eric S. Margolis, the defense and foreign affairs columnist of the TORONTO SUN.

While Washington has been rebuking its European North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies for failing to boost their conventional forces, Canada has almost completely disarmed with hardly a murmur of U.S. protest.

At the end of World War, Canada had the world's third-largest navy and almost one million men under arms. In 1962, a still­ powerful Canadian navy assumed defense of the North Atlantic, temporarily substituting for U.S. warships blockading Cuba.

Today, Canada's military power is only a distant memory. Its once-proud armed forces now rank on a par with those of Ecuador or the Philippines. This process began 16 years ago when the new Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau set out to reduce U.S. ownership of a major portion of Canada's industry, heighten nationalism and create a Scandinavian-style welfare state. To finance such sweeping programs, Ottawa embarked on massive deficit spending and the relentless diversion of funds away from the military....

Canadian territory is vital to the defense of U.S. airspace and its maritime approaches. And Canadian leaders have long been uncomfortably aware that the U.S. might act to defend Canada if Canadians did not do so themselves. "Unless we defend our own sovereignty," says George Bell, director of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, "we could become a protectorate of the United States."...

Canada...spends just under 2% of gross national product on defense, the lowest amount of any NATO member save tiny Iceland and Luxembourg. There are only 83,000 men and women (in and out of uniform) in Canada's armed forces — this to defend territory larger than the U.S. But even this figure does not tell the full story. The land component of Canada's unified armed forces can field only about 8 ,000 combat troops and a paltry 114 tanks. Though highly trained and of excellent quality, in numbers the army is little more than a gendarmerie. Canada's air force has some of the world's best pilots but only 150 combat aircraft, half of which are obsolescent or ready for the scrap yard. Despite the air force's purchasing of new F-18 fighters, attrition will leave it by 1987 with no more than 138 warplanes with which to defend Canadian airspace, patrol the Arctic and support NATO.

Canada has one of the world's longest coastlines and is a major exporter. Yet the state of its navy was described recently at a parliamentary committee hearing as "pathetic." The navy's 23 destroyers and frigates have an average age of 23 years: Half are nearing the end of their service lives; only four have any modern armament. The older ships suffer from chronic boiler troubles and their electronic gear is so ancient that their required vacuum tubes must be purchased from, of all places, the U.S.S.R.

Last January, during a naval review for the defense minister in Halifax, more than half the ships on display broke down. One Canadian admiral puts it simply: "Going to sea in wartime would be suicidal." Nor does Canada have a single mine sweeper to keep its vital ports open during hostilities.

The infrastructure of military power is also lacking. Trained manpower reserves are almost nonexistent; there is no industrial mobilization capacity at all. Should war erupt tomorrow, Canada could not even supply its troops with enough rifles, not to mention all the high-tech equipment of modern war. Canada's once­ extensive arms industry has been allowed to wither away by a government that considered it wicked and immoral.

Confirming this alarming state, a recent study by the nonpartisan, blue-ribbon Business Council on National Issues reports that Canada lacks not only the ability to meet its NATO commitments, but even the means of defending itself.... Some Canadians are becoming unhappily aware that their nation has been stripped of its defenses. Many, however, still believe the notion promoted by the past government, that the armed forces' prime role was for United Nations peacekeeping missions. There is a particularly distressing irony here. Pierre Trudeau, by striving to lessen U.S. influence over Canada, may well have made his nation even more dependent on its powerful and sometimes overbearing neighbor....

Brian Mulroney's new Conservative government is well aware of Canada's military distress. The defense minister, Robert Coates, has promised to reequip the armed forces to a "significant degree," with priority going to the navy. During the election campaign, he promised $190 million more for defense — an amount that represents about five fighter aircraft. Defense, as always, is a very low priority for Canada....

Such sweeping improvements in the military can come only from the social-welfare budget — the most-sacred cow of Canadian politics. Soviet troops may have to land in Toronto before Canadians agree to cuts in their beloved welfare schemes.

Another idea that Canadian authorities came up with years ago to streamline (and probably deemphasize) the country's military structure was to amalgamate all branches of the military — army, navy and air force — under one command, called the "Canadian forces." I remember attending the seven-nation economic summit in Ottawa in June 1981. We journalists were told that the various heads-of-government were to land at the "Canadian forces" base adjacent to the Ottawa airport. An air force base was implied, but not stated. Such "uniforce" ideas hardly inspire an esprit de corp — any more than the "unisex" direction the U.S. military was headed during the Carter Administration.

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau