12
PaThat was the position in the case of Ireland. Plagland' cifestances were quite different from those of other States of the Commonwealth. For 700 years they struggled for their freedom. They have their whole history behind them. This led to discord in Ireland and unity was only brought about in Ireland when she took the step that she eventually took and when she severed that link. In the case of India one found the same thing. Whilst that outside link existed, the link with the Crown, India was unable to achieve unity. I am not referring now to India and Pakistan because there were other reasons that led to discord between them. But eventually India achieved unity again; I think this step that she has now at last taken in severing her link with the Crown has brought unity to India. The only conclusion that I want to draw from that is that the link of common allegiance to the Crown is not the only bond holding the Commonwealth together. There are other bonds as well those I mentioned a moment ago which are stronger than the bond of Kingship, and I think the present trend of events has demonstrated that most clearly. I want to conclude on this note. What has been done in this case will not result in breaking up the Commonwealth; on the contrary, it will build up the Commonwealth; it will preserve the unity and the power of the Commonwealth, and the impression that the world would have gained and undoubtedly did gain that the Commonwealth was in the process of disintegrating is now being removed. The unity of the Commonwealth, and with it its strength and its power in the world, has been maintained and, in my opinion, strengthened.
CC
As far as South Africa is concerned, there have always been two schools of thought, not only in recent years, but for years and for generations, namely, the republican idea on the one hand, and the other conception, on the other hand, that we must be linked up with a nation overseas. We have failed to reconcile those two standpoints and we will not and cannot succeed in reconciling them. But I can say this with regard to these opposing standpoints, that my opinion has always been-and I want to record it here that the greatest unity will be obtained in the case of South Africa, too, when we become a Republic.
"I want to add to what I have said on previous occasions that at the present moment there are other issues, important issues of vital importance to this country in respect of which the population of this country-English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking and members of all parties-hold the same view to a large extent. These are urgent problems that must be solved and in order to be able to do so, we must seek unity and stand together. But one thing is certain and that is that the declaration issued at this Conference has brought us closer together than we have ever been before perhaps, as far as our different standpoints with regard to the constitutional position are concerned. There are some of us who are republicans; there are others who believe in the maintenance of the link with the Crown, but I make bold to say that in reference to one matter that that side of the House and this side of the House, all sections in South Africa, are agreed upon and that is that we want to remain in the Commonwealth if no restrictions are placed on our freedom; if our right of self-determination is not affected.
***
*
*
*
If a war breaks out in which we are threatened by the communistic danger, we shall be able to present a more united front than we have ever witnessed in this country, but whatever the future of South Africa may be in the constitutional sphere, however much we may differ with regard to the question of a Republic, or the retention of the link with the Crown, on one point we are now agreed and stand together, and that is that whatever the circumstances may be we would like to remain in the Commonwealth for reasons that I have already indicated.
**
EXTRACTS
*
FROM SPEECH BY
FIELD-MARSHAL
*
THE RIGHT
HON. J. C. SMUTS IN SOUTH AFRICAN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, 11TH MAY, 1949
About the Declaration issued by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in London on 27th April, 1949, General Smuts said :-
"I find one part of that declaration very satisfactory; it is quite satisfactory as far as I am concerned. I am not satisfied with the arrangement that has been made the regandftendia and I have given expressPugtozuy feeling about that aspect of the action that was taken at the conference. But from a larger point of
13
view, with tageceptionIndia, it may be said that that deflati37&sfn3hAr- mation of the Statute of Westminster. Looking at the terms of this declaration, as I shall do in a moment, I find that there is no revolutionary departure, as I feared, from the position that was declared legally at the time when the Statute of Westminster was passed both in London and here, and in other parts of the Com- monwealth: The exception refers to India, but for the rest of the position remains as it was. I should like just to refer to the Statute of Westminster to show what was the Commonwealth link as laid down in the Statute of Westminster, and I shall then proceed to show that so far as the great bulk of the Commonwealth is concerned, with the exception of India, no change has been made. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster states the case in these terms:
"The Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth and they (i.e., the members) are united by a common allegiance to the Crown.'
The Statute of Westminster therefore lays down as the basis, the foundation for our Commonwealth, two principles; the principle of free association, of which The King is the symbol in the Commonwealth; and the other, the common allegiance to the Crown. That is our existing law, that is the existing position. Coming now to this Declaration I have read it in order to see whether, apart from the case of India, any change was made, and I find the situation remains identical to what it was under the Statute of Westminster. The relevant part of this important Declaration reads:-
"The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and owe alle- giance to the Crown, which is also a symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.'
It uses the very language, the very terminology of the Statute of Westminster. Then it refers to the exception that has been made for India and it goes on to
say-
"The Governments of other countries of the Commonwealth (ie., excepting India) the basis of whose membership is not hereby changed. accept the position now with regard to India. It is therefore clear that follow- ing the documentary evidence, both the Statute of Westminster and the Declaration now made, that the Prime Minister is absolutely correct in his state- ment that there is absolutely no change in the position here. The language of both the preamble of the Statute of Westminster and of this Declaration are identical in terms, leaving aside the exception in regard to India. I think that is important, because this consideration of the facts-taking both the Statute of Westminster and the new Declaration together-show there is no revolutionary change in regard to the constitution, the basis of Commonwealth unity, the basis under the two documents. In both cases it is a dual foundation that is given for the Commonwealth. There is the free association of which The King is the symbol, and there is the common allegiance to the Crown. These are the two points and they continue unaltered for the Commonwealth. Therefore with the exception of India there is no change whatever in the situation. The change is made in regard to India and India alone.
*
*
*
"I have been critical of the way that India has been treated. The Prime Minister has given a very elaborate and very illuminating exposition of the reason why India was dealt with in this way, why this exceptional treatment has been accorded to India. And one can understand that position quite fully. The world position to-day is such, the position of India is such, the strategic, the economic, and the political position of India in the world's structure is such that there must have been almost overwhelming considerations in favour of giving her an excep- tional position which would still keep her within the ambit of the Commonwealth. I understand that we all appreciate that. What I feared was this; that the abolition of the common allegiance in the case of India would loosen the bonds which keep us together. They are not bonds of subordination, none whatever. We all know that within our system we have the fullest liberty and freedom of development, of self-determination, as the Prime Minister says. But even so, The King is something of a reality in our system, even if he does not exercise functions,
162
14
even iPaghanokative power as head of the Stateage279onfeng real, he is not a mere nonentity, a mere symbol. There is something more, and that is due largely to this common allegiance which the rest of us have retained. We do not want to make the concept of the Commonwealth something which is quite unreal, something which is merely symbolic, something which is merely a matter of language and has nothing behind it. We have the case in history of the Holy Roman Empire, which continued to be called the Holy Roman Empire hundreds of years after it had ceased to exist, after it had become merely a name and there was nothing else behind it. We are very anxious, all of us, to see that the Com- monwealth does not degenerate to that position, that it becomes mere verbiage, a mere term with no real meaning behind it, and my fear has been, and it is an anxiety I still feel, that the disappearance, so far as India is concerned, of the common allegiance, does weaken the position very considerably. India does remain as a member of the Commonwealth on the ground of free association, but the other ground which holds for us she has abolished, and it does not apply to her. I am most anxious that it should not take place, this process of destroying both bonds and that those two bonds which hold us together as a reality should not disappear. I am very anxious that the exception which has been made in the case of India should not become a precedent for other cases.
*
*
*
I fully agree with what the Prime Minister has said, that we have grown together. In the process of the years in spite of different points of view, in spite of the different character of the various members of the Commonwealth, there has been a growing together as an organism, and in a sense a greater feeling of unity and of strength which belongs to this system; and I should be very sorry to see India-the case which is quite exceptional-used as a precedent and followed in other cases, too. I am pleased with and I acclaim the work the Prime Minister has done. He must have felt like the other Prime Ministers there that the case for accommodating India in the Commonwealth in some formula or another must have been overwhelming, and it has been done. It has been done quite cleverly by still using the language of the Statute of Westminster, the identical terms of the Statute of Westminster, without applying the Indian formula to the other members. We have now on record once more the confirmation of the position under the Statute of Westminster. I am glad of that. I think that is the real meaning and significance of what has been done, that not only has an exception been made for India but the position for the rest, for the Commonwealth as a whole minus India, has remained absolutely identical. The same language has been used as in the Statute of Westminster, and therefore there is no departure from that.
66
The Prime Minister has referred to our case in South Africa. We must remember what is the position in South Africa, with its situation in the Common- wealth. I do not think it is a handicap on us that we are two European races in this country. I think that is going to add to the stature of South Africa in the future. We are not a community embodying only one point of view, but we bring together different points of view, different traditions; and this mixture of the past with the future, this mixture of various elements we have brought into the common pool, must lead to something greater, more distinguished and more unique in the future than has been the case in the past. There will never be anything common- place about South Africa, because it has brought together these strong virile races, and although we have passed through periods of contention I think those periods of contention have probably helped us to develop our strength and create a promise for the future we otherwise would not have had.
ม
"But look at our history, our constitutional history. We were two conquered republics and two other old colonies and we came together in the South Africa Act and formed the Union of South Africa. We accepted that bond of The King which now still holds our Commonwealth together to a very large extent. We came together under the Crown with the common allegiance. We came together in a legislative union on that basis. We formed a Parliament in which The King is a constituent element as set out in terms of the South Africa Act. Therefore, looking back at our whole history, not only the Statute of Westminster but many years before, we see how this bond has held us together and has been approved and acclaimed by all sections of our people. The South Africa Act without a doubt is the grandebord that es held us together. It is the Paigecheythaf 366happened in our country. We came together on that basis, and I think it will be a sorry day if we should depart from the basis on which we became united then-the common
15
Page
allegiance, the gempf Whatever our past may have been we accepted that 36k
that all South Africans were agreed and are still agreed, and we look upon the South Africa Act as a sacred document in our history and nothing ought to be done which will destroy the value of that document for us.
"There has been this urge in us, at least among large sections of our people, in favour of the republic.
"And it is quite intelligible. Looking at the past of South Africa you can well understand it, and I personally feel the strength of that sentiment, of that urge, which is a great factor in our history. But, Mr. Chairman, we still come back to this point that in spite of it all, in spite of the dual past, in spite of The King and the republic we came together, we accepted the situation in the South Africa Act, and under the common allegiance we have been together now since 1910. I do not think anything should be done to disturb that situation. It is not a question of liberty. We can be just as free and we are just as free and sovereign a State with the kingship as we would be with a republic. It is not the question of liberty, it is a question of keeping the people of South Africa together on the lines on which they have developed and on which they have formed a State which has forged ahead and re-created this country and made something very worth-while of our people.
'I therefore come to this point. The position is quite clear. There is no difference really in the exposition which the Prime Minister has made of the con- stitutional position from the view which I myself hold and which I have been trying to explain to the Committee. We have now to consider the question of the future and I do think that it is just and fair that the Prime Minister should tell us about the future and what the policy of his party is.
*
*
*
*
"Let us deal with the problems which face this country at the present time and that will trouble our country for years to come. That is the point I want to urge. I do not think that there is very much difference between the exposition which has been given by the Prime Minister and myself about the whole position in the Commonwealth, but I do ask him and his party to realise how difficult the situation becomes for us if we go back on what we have done in the past in the South Africa Act, in the Statute of Westminster, and what we have done now again in London in the declaration which affects the Statute of Westminster. I want us to reflect how much harm we can do to this country and how much we can distract the attention of the people in this country from the practical problems which really ought to receive our most concentrated attention and handling. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister, if possible, to make a declaration which will ease the situation in this country and make it possible for people wholeheartedly to work together in the years to come. We must treat India's case as something apart; not as an example to follow. We have a situation now which will demand all our strength in this country and I hope we shall concentrate on that situation.'
""
APPENDIX IV
SPEECH BY PANDIT NEHRU, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, IN INDIAN CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY ON 16TH MAY, 1949, AS REPORTED BY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES ON 17TH MAY, 1949
Pandit Nehru said: "I have the honour to move the following motion :-
"Resolved that this Assembly do hereby ratify the declaration, agreed to by the Prime Minister of India, on the continued membership of India in the Commonwealth of Nations, as set out in the official statement issued at the conclusion of the Conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London on 27th April, 1949."
Commending the decision to the House, Pandit Nehru said: "If we are dissociated 482 the Commonwealth, for the moment wPage 28mplete isolated. We cannot remain completely isolated and so, inevitably, by stress of circumstances we have to incline in some direction or other. That inclination
163
joy!
:
16
in somgaiz&ctiof 366ther will necessarily be a giveaga k∞ £Œßáíi 6. In other words, it will involve commitments far more than there are now. Therefore, in that sense, we are freer to-day to come to friendly understandings with other countries and to play the part of a bridge for mutual understanding between other countries.'
""
Pandit Nehru said he had been often asked, "How can you join a Common- wealth in which there is racial discrimination and there are other things happening to which we object?" He admitted that this was a fair question and was a matter which necessarily must cause some trouble in our thinking.' Nevertheless, it was a question which did not really arise. When we have an alliance with a nation or with a group of nations," Pandit Nehru explained, "it does not mean that we accept their other policies. It does not mean that we commit ourselves in any way to something that they may do. In fact, our countrymen are carrying on at the present moment a struggle in regard to racial discrimination in various parts of the world. One of the major questions before the United Nations at the instance of India has been the position of Indians in South Africa, and may I for a moment refer to the passing of a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday and express my appreciation and my Government's appreciation of the way our delegation has functioned, and our appreciation of all those nations of the United Nations-almost all, in fact, barring South Africa-which finally supported this attitude of India?
FOREIGN POLICY
"Now one of the pillars of our foreign policy, repeatedly stated, is to fight against racial discrimination and to fight for the freedom of suppressed nationalities. Are we compromising on that issue by remaining in the Common- wealth? We have been fighting on the South African-Indian issue and on other issues even though we have been a dominion of the Commonwealth. But it would have been a dangerous thing for us to bring that matter within the purview of the Commonwealth, because then that very thing to which you and I object might have taken place, i.e., the Commonwealth might have been considered some kind of a superior body which judges and which sometimes acts as a tribunal or in a sense supervises the activities of its member nations. It certainly would have meant a diminution in our independence and sovereignty if we accepted that principle. Therefore, we were not prepared and we are not prepared to treat the Commonwealth as such or even to bring the disputes between member nations of the Commonwealth before that Commonwealth body.
"We may, of course, in a friendly way discuss these matters. That is a different matter, but we are anxious to maintain the absolute independence of our country and of other countries in the Commonwealth.
"If we are to adopt the attitude that we are not going to associate ourselves with a country because we disapprove of certain policies of that country, then there would be hardly any association for us with any country because we may well disapprove of something or other that that country does. Sometimes it so happens that the difference is so great that you cut off relations with a country or there is a big conflict. But you cannot argue that because you do not agree with everything that the Soviet Union does you cannot have representation there or that you cannot have a treaty with the United States because you do not agree with some of its policies. That is not the way nations carry on their foreign work or any work.
We join the Commonwealth obviously because we think it is beneficial to us and to other causes in the world that we wish to advance. Other countries of the Commonwealth want us to remain there because they think it is beneficial to them. It is mutually understood that it is to the advantage of the nations in the Commonwealth and, therefore, they join, but at the same time it is made perfectly clear that each country goes its own way. It may be that that way sometimes goes so far as to make the Commonwealth link break. Well, then it breaks and there the matter ends.
t
But in the world of to-day, where there are so many disruptive forces at work, where sometimes we are often at the verge of war, I think it is not a thing to be encouraged to break up any association with anyone. Break up the evil parts of it, break up anything that may come in the way of your growth, but theewil ifis otter to keep a co-operative a Bagatinl going which might do good in this world rather than bad.
17
Page 282.
Page 282 This declaration is no new move. It is a complete reorientation of some- thing that has existed in an entirely different way. Suppose we had been cut off from England completely and we had then desired to join the Commonwealth, it would have been a new move. Suppose a new group of nations wants us to join them and we joined them, that would have been a new move from which various consequences would have flowed. In the present instance, a certain association has been existing for a considerable time past. A very great change came in the way of that association on 15th August, 1947. Now another major change is contemplated. Gradually the conception is changing, yet that certain link remains in a different form.
Referring to the discussions that preceded the signing of the declaration, Pandit Nehru said: “I am afraid I am a bad bargainer. I am not used to the ways of the market place. I hope I am a good fighter and I hope I am a good friend. I am anything in between. And so, when you have to bargain hard for anything, do not send me.
"I think it is far better to gain the goodwill of the other party, to come to a decision in friendship and goodwill, than to gain a word here or there at the cost of ill-will. So I approached the problem in this spirit. The Prime Ministers also approached it in that spirit. It is possible that if I had tried my hardest, I might have got a word here or there changed but the essence of the declara- tion could not have been changed because there was nothing more for us to get out of the declaration.
India's Approach
"I preferred not to do so because I preferred creating an impression- and I hope a right impression that the approach of India to these and other problems of the world was not a narrow-minded approach but was an approach based on faith and confidence and strength in her own future and, therefore, India was not afraid of any country coming in the way of that future. The world was interested how this very knotty and difficult problem which appeared insoluble could be solved.
"It could not be solved if we left it to eminent lawyers. Lawyers have their use in life but they should not be spread out everywhere (Laughter). It could not have been solved by extreme narrow-minded nationalists who cannot see to the right or to the left and who live in a narrow sphere of their own and, therefore, forget that the world is going ahead. It could not have been solved by people who lived in the past and could not realise that the present is different from the past and the future is going to be still more different. It could not have been solved by any person who lacked faith in India and in India's destiny. "I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom we had been fighting in the past, provided the basis of co-operation to-day was an honourable basis, was a free basis, and a basis which might lead to the good not only of our- selves but of the world. That is to say, we would not deny that co-operation. simply because in the past we had had to fight and thus carry this trail of our past karma along with us. We had to wash out that past with all its evil.
**
Past Pledges
As I sat there at the Conference table, I remembered that day, wher 19 years ago, we took a pledge on the banks of the Ravi at a midnight hour and I remembered the pledge repeated year after year on 26th January, in spite of difficulty and obstruction. And I remembered that day when, standing at this very place, I placed before this House the Objectives resolution. Two years and five months have elapsed since that happened.
"In that resolution, we defined more or less the type of free Government or Republic that we are going to have. Later, this subject came up at the Jaipur session of the Congress. Not only my mind but many minds were struggling with this problem, trying to find a way out that was in keeping with the honour and dignity and independence of India and yet also in keeping with the changing world and the facts as they were, something that would advance the cause of India and agan2adf6e in the world and yet sometagewohowedd be strictly and absolutely true to every single pledge that we had taken.
37154
D
164
18
Page 283 366e
It was clear to me that whatever the advantagesnight befof any associa-
tion with the Commonwealth or with any other group, no single advantage, however great, could be purchased by a single iota of our pledges being given up, because no country can make progress by playing fast and loose with the principles which it has declared. I stand before you to say in all humility that I have fulfilled that mandate to the letter (cheers).
r
"All of us have for many years passed through the valley of the shadow. We have passed our lives in struggle, sometimes failure, sometimes success, and all of us have been haunted by the dreams and visions of those days, the hopes that filled us and the frustrations that often followed those hopes. Yet we have seen that even out of the prickly thorn of frustration and despair, we have been able to pick up the rose of fulfilment. So let us not be led away by considering a situation in terms of events which are no longer there.
Touch of Healing
"The value I would like this House to attach to this declaration is that it is a method which brings a touch of healing with it. In this world which is so sick and which has not recovered from so many deep wounds caused during the last decade or more, it is necessary that we touch upon the world's problems not with passion and prejudice and with too much repetition of what has ceased to be but in a friendly way and with a touch of healing. I think the chief value of this declaration and what preceded it was that it did bring a touch of healing in our relations with certain countries. We are in no way subordinate to them and they are in no way subordinate to us. We shall go our way and they shall go their way. But our ways-unless something happens--will be friendly ways. At any rate, attempts will be made to understand each other, to be friends with each other and to co-operate with each other and the fact that we have begun this new type of association with a touch of healing will be good for us and good for them and, I think, good for the world." (Loud cheers.)
Features of the Declaration
Pandit Nehru asked the House to notice that in the first paragraph of the declaration, dealing with the present position, the Commonwealth was referred to as the British Commonwealth of Nations. In subsequent paragraphs, how- ever, it was described as the Commonwealth of Nations. Further, while in the first paragraph there was the question of allegiance to the Crown, which existed at present, subsequently there was a reference to The King as the symbol of that association. The reference was to The King and not the Crown. It was a small matter but it had a certain small significance.
So far as the Republic of India was concerned, she had nothing to do with any external authority or with any King and none of its citizens would owe any allegiance to The King or to any other external authority.
He was placing the declaration for the approval of the House but there was no question of any law being framed in accordance with it. There was no law behind the Commonwealth itself, not even possibly the formality which accompanied normal treaties. It was an agreement by free will to be terminated at free will.
It had been made perfectly clear that The King had no functions at all. He had a certain status but the Commonwealth itself as such had no body, it had no organisation to function and The King also could have no functions. There were hardly any obligations in the nature of commitments. An attempt had been made to produce something which was entirely novel. There was absolutely nothing behind the declaration except what was placed before the House.
Nature of Commonwealth
age
One of the objects of this kind of Commonwealth association was to create a statuspwhich was something between being completely foreign and being of one nationally. Obviously, Commonwealth countries belonged to different nations, they were independent and there were independent nationalities. Normally,
19
either they had a common nationality or they were foreign. Fagfe 2 a6 36ber- mediate stage. Up till now, in the British Commonwealth of Nations, there was a binding link which was allegiance to The King. That would snap when India became a Republic.
"If we desire to give a certain preference or a certain privilege mutually by treaty to any one of those countries," said Pandit Nehru, "we would normally be precluded from doing so because of the most-favoured-nation clause, that is, that country would be as much foreign as any other country. We wanted to take away that foreignness, keeping in our own hands what, if any, privilege or preference we should give to any other country in the Commonwealth.
"I do not know how we shall proceed to deal with the matter. It will be for this House to decide at a later stage. At one time there was talk of a Commonwealth citizenship. It was difficult to understand what the contents of a Commonwealth citizenship might be, except again that we would not be completely foreign to one another. There is no longer any consideration of that business and I think it is as well that we left off talking about something which could not be easily defined. But the other fact remains, the fact that we could take the right to ourselves, if we so chose, to enter into treaties or arrangements with the Commonwealth countries assuring certain mutual privileges and preferences.'
SPEECH BY PANDIT NEHRU, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, IN INDIAN CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY ON 17TH MAY, 1949, AS REPORTED BY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES ON 18TH MAY, 1949
The Prime Minister, replying to the debate, appealed to his critics not to look at the question in a party spirit.
'
I think," he said, it should be possible for people who differ considerably in regard to internal policy to have more or less a unified foreign policy. It is exceedingly difficult to have any common approach about anything with those individuals or groups who think in terms of other countries and not of India at all as the primary thing. But, with people who think in terms of India's inde- pendence and progress, there should be no great difference in our foreign policy.'
Pandit Nehru said that the London decision fulfilled and did not go against any pledges of ours." It did not come in the way of India going forward to her natural destiny of a sovereign independent republic. Indian freedom and independence were in no way touched. The republic that the House had decided upon would come into existence without any commitment which might tie it down in any way.
'
We would have achieved that, of course, in any event," Pandit Nehru added, "but we have achieved that with the goodwill of many others. To achieve it with the goodwill of others, who perhaps are hit by it, is some achieve- ment. It shows that the manner of doing things is a manner which does not leave a trace of evil, hatred, bitterness or ill-will behind. On the other hand, it starts with a fund of goodwill, and goodwill is always precious from any quarter. Therefore, I had the sensation, when I was considering this matter in London, that in a small measure perhaps I had done something that would have met with the approval of Gandhiji. I am thinking more of the manner of it than of the thing done.'
Two Tests
One of the tests by which the decision should be judged was whether it helped or hindered India in making rapid progress. India had, in a sense, solved the political problem but was faced with many economic difficulties. They were her domestic concern, no doubt, but the world could help or hinder any policy that she might adopt. "I am prepared to go ahead even without external help," he said, but obviously it will be a far more difficult task and it will take a much longer time. During these critical years that face us it is important that we make good economically as we have done politically. We have to see whether the London decision generally helps us to gain strength and to build ourselves up in the near future of 386
284
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.