Britain: Embattled but Unbowed

(10 of 11)

having U.S. bases in Britain, which would commit the country to war in a nuclear exchange. They also often oppose NATO as a capitalist prop. This upsurge of pacifism with an anti-American edge might have been expected in the twilight of the Viet Nam War, but why now, when America's reputation under Jimmy Carter has been that of a weak superpower with a strong human rights policy?

One reason, believes Christoph Bertram, the director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is simply frustration over the economy. Says Bertram: "When the government has finished administering its bitter medicine—whether it works or not—this will be a different country. My fear is that it's going to be a country that is more anti-American, more anti-European, more insular." Bertram contends that left-wing moralism and pacifism have traditionally played a role in British politics. But now "moralism has combined with the fear that nuclear weapons might actually be used. This has tended to blur the distinction, so vital for the nuclear age, between deterrence and actual warfare."

Certainly the economic crisis has driven home the realization that Britain is going to have to make some hard choices about its defense commitments. M.P. Bruce George, a member of the Commons Select Committee on Defense, says there is no way Britain can meet its varied defense commitments and pay for the proposed $12 billion Trident missile program, which would allow Britain to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent through the end of the century. Thatcher's position on Trident is clear: she will not cancel it. Nonetheless, her government is facing severe budgetary problems in maintaining a defense spending program that represents just over 5% of its G.N.P. As the economic crisis intensifies, so will the debate over defense—and the country's priorities.

North Sea oil has bought Britain some precious time in which to put its economic house in order. It is Thatcher's ambition—and almost religious determination—to seize this unique moment to transform Britain's economy in order that it may survive over the long term, with or without oil. Until now, she has concentrated on the radical surgery of cutting away the deadwood of ailing industries. But the signs are that, like the stern nurse she is fond of quoting, she soon will have to turn her attention to getting the sick patient back on its feet, to move from surgery to rehabilitation.

Her conservative government, with its big majority, seems safely ensconced until 1984, in part because Labor has not been able to mobilize a following that can truly bring it down before then. Michael Foot talks of legions of Britons taking to the streets in outrage, determined to topple the "criminal" Thatcher government. But instead his own party is tearing itself asunder, giving Thatcher a golden year virtually free of serious political fears. It may just be the piece of luck she needs to get through this perilous period in which she is struggling to bring her monetarist equation into balance. If she fails, she will have to alter course sharply or bow out. If she succeeds, she will have administered much-needed therapy to the Britain she believes in — and she will have written quite a chapter for the political textbooks.

—By Marguerite Johnson

Reported by