Britain Breaking Ranks

By William R. Doerner

The amendment consisted of a mere eight words attached to a motion that went on for a full page. But at the annual conference of Britain's Liberal Party last week in the resort city of Eastbourne, those eight words provoked an impassioned three-hour debate, led to a humiliating defeat for Party Leader David Steel and could quite conceivably affect the course of the next general election. By the thin margin of 27 votes, out of a total 1,277 cast, delegates passed a motion calling on Britain to assume a more active role in bolstering NATO, "providing that such a defense capability is non-nuclear."

The Liberals thus rejected a painfully crafted compromise between Steel and their alliance partners, the Social Democrats, advocating a continued role for Britain's independent nuclear force. The rebuff could not be overlooked by the Social Democrats, whose party was founded five years ago by former Labor Party members, largely because of their opposition to Labor's call for unilateral disarmament. Social Democratic Leader David Owen said he was shocked by the vote, which he called a "very serious blow." Steel admitted that the outcome of the vote was nothing less than a "breathtaking misjudgment." With the two parties split on such a basic electoral issue, some observers doubted that they could continue to march under the same alliance banner.

The government of Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is planning to replace Britain's fleet of four Polaris nuclear submarines, which will become obsolete in the late 1990s, with larger and faster Trident missile subs at a cost of more than $12 billion. Owen opposes buying the U.S.-built replacements on grounds of cost and excessive dependence on Washington. At their party conference in Harrogate two weeks ago, the Social Democrats called for a coordinated European defense effort, including possible Anglo-French "collaboration" on a joint nuclear deterrent. The Liberal leadership warmly endorsed the resolution, which also urged renunciation of Britain's participation in the Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly known as Star Wars. Steel pronounced the measure "secure and forward looking."

The Tories, who regularly attack Labor's unilateral approach to defense but have had more trouble scoring points against the alliance's stand, lost no time in exploiting the rift. By taking a stance so drastically opposed to that of their alliance partners, said Tory Party Chairman Norman Tebbit, the Liberals "have shot themselves through the heart rather than the foot."

The British nuclear issue was also joined last week from an unfamiliar direction. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, in a taped interview with the BBC scheduled for broadcast early this week, criticized the Labor Party for demanding that Britain scrap its nuclear arsenal, ban U.S. nuclear bases and prevent U.S. ships carrying nuclear arms from entering British waters. If a future Labor government should put such policies into operation, Weinberger warned, the result could be the dismantling of NATO. Labor Leader Neil Kinnock, whose fellow party members are expected to reaffirm a no-nukes stand this week at their annual conference in Brighton, condemned Weinberger for meddling in British politics.

The issue is anything but academic. Thatcher is widely expected to call elections well before the mid-1988 deadline, probably some time next year. While she will have the advantage of setting the date, the Labor Party has consistently led in the polls for the past nine months. Last week's Liberal- Social Democratic rift over defense policy may have helped the Tories, who stand to profit more than Labor from centrist confusion. Kinnock's resurgent party nonetheless remains a formidable opponent.

With reporting by Christopher Ogden/Eastbourne