Notebook
In a recent issue of the American magazine Harper's Norman Podhoretz took seven pages to explain why he thought that George Orwell, were he alive today, would not be a supporter of unilateral disarma- ment. He thinks of Orwell rather as a neoconservative who would be out of sym- pathy with the present Labour Party on the subject because he was an anti-pacifist. (So, during the second world war, was Michael Foot.) Podhoretz's argument for his pro- position is drawn principally from a Lon- don Letter Orwell wrote to the Partisan Review in 1942, in which he described Pacifism as 'objectively pro-fascist'. Despotic governments can stand "moral force" till the cows come home,' Orwell wrote; 'what they fear is physical force.' But does this necessarily mean that he Would say today, in the nuclear debate, that unilateralism is 'objectively pro- communist'? Orwell's comments were Made in the middle of the war and as part of a controversy which he was having at the time with D. S. Savage, George Woodcock and Alex Comfort. He was willing to be on the side of the capitalists during Hitler's war when it was a case of 'my country, right or left'. However, since he also took the view that many of 'the rich' were emo- tionally, if not objectively, pro-fascist, I think it appealed to his sometimes perverse nature to put the pacifists alongside them. It is quite a step to take from here to the confident assumption that Orwell would have condemned the Labour Party's policy on disarmament. Podhoretz argues, from Orwell's published work, that he had so turned against totalitarianism that he would support anything that opposed it or held it back. Peregrine Worsthorne, in the Notebook last month, put forward the thesis (later taken up by the Prime Minister) that the peace movement would think dif- ferently about nuclear deterrence if the Potential enemy was a nuclear armed Nazi Germany and not Russia. Who knows if Orwell would think differently, 40 years on, if faced with a question which is, on any view, of a different scale? I rather think that Orwell, again maybe perversely, would be loath to be seen to align himself with some of the Tory deterrers. But he would be just as reluctant to stand up with Mgr Bruce Kent and the Bishop of Salisbury. It is a slightly pointless, if in- teresting, exercise to reflect on this matter for too long. If Orwell were still alive — he would be 80 this year — it might be more interesting to know his views on modern ar- Oitecture, on the disappearance of the old counties, on the destruction of parts of the countryside, and other horrors. Acording to Michael Foot, writing in the Observer, Arthur Koestler, who died last week, 'never tackled ... the final dilemma of the nuclear age'. One could speculate again, on the fascination of a nuclear debate between Orwell and Koestler, probably the two most influential writers in this century on the threat and consequences of totalitarianism. They met and became friends in England during the war — having both been in different parts of Spain during the Civil War — and great- ly admired each other's work. Shortly after Orwell's first wife died, he became very friendly with Koestler's wife's sister, Celia Paget, and would often meet her at the Koestlers' house in north Wales. Koestler expressed the hope that he and Orwell might become brothers-in-law; but it was not to be, though Orwell did propose mar- riage. It was at this time that Orwell deter- mined to show that no relationship would affect or compromise his critical judgment, that he was not to be relied upon for a sym- pathetic review of a friend's work. His review of a play by Koestler was published by Tribune on the day before Orwell went to spend Christmas with the Koestlers in north Wales. 'It was a merciless hatchet job,' Koestler said later. There was in the article no word of encouragement for the future, no suggestion that the author of Darkness at Noon might be forgiven this temporary lapse. 'Why did you have to write such a stinking review,' Koestler ask- ed Orwell. 'Well, it was a stinking play.' A man of Koestler's great integrity, and humanity, had clearly met his match in Orwell, whose integrity appeared to know no bounds.
Ihave often been told that the Swiss are a mean lot, but have had no reason myself to subscribe to this general view, if that is what it is. However, a friend has drawn my attention to the policy recently adopted by Swissair in charging skiers for the carriage of skis and ski boots. The normal baggage allowance for air travellers is 20 kilograms, and a charge is payable on any excess over this weight. Skis and boots do qualify as baggage under the regulations, strictly in-
terpreted, but since, depending on size, they can weigh nearly 20 kilograms, the airlines have never bothered to weigh them with other luggage. But now Swissair, and ap- parently only Swissair, has decided to re- verse the general practice, and weigh skiing equipment, with the result that you may have to pay in overweight a charge almost equivalent to the price of a pair of ski boots. (It is, of course, possible though un- comfortable to wear ski boots on the plane.) The meanness of Swissair in seeking to enforce this regulation also discriminates against the bigger person, requiring larger boots and longer skis. Unfortunately a boycott of Swissair will not necessarily avoid the overweight charge, because at Geneva airport the luggage of all passengers, on all airlines, is under the con- trol of Swissair. The best advice to skiers is to go to another country — where they will also find the exchange rate to be much more favourable.
T wonder what has been the fate, in recent 1 years, of the various Royal Commis- sions which are set up, from time to time, to inquire into matters which appear vitally important to someone when they are established but which, after due reflection, are likely to be ignored, or merely noted with interest, when the reports come to be considered. How many hours, how many words, have been wasted? There are those bodies — like the Royal Commissions on Ancient and Historical Monuments, ap- pointed in 1908 — which have a continuing and necessary function. But also, in the past few years, there have been royal com- missions reporting on the distribution of in- come and wealth, on legal services, on criminal procedure. It might be interesting to know how many of their recommenda- tions have been implemented, and how many put aside. It was nearly 50 years ago that A.P. Herbert commented on the irrele- vant and pointless nature of such inquiries, and I doubt whether there is any reason to- day to revise his view:
But still I'm a Royal Commission, My task I intend to see through, Though I know, as an old politician, Not a thing will be done if I do.
nritish Rail is abolishing the chamber 1-0 pot, the one to be found underneath the basin in sleeping compartments. In the new, sound-proofed, air-conditioned sleepers, which BR has introduced on its services to and from Scotland, the pot is missing. I do not know whether it is only these passengers who have to suffer the in- convenience, or whether the pot is being gradually and generally phased out. But why were the customers not consulted? Surely not because it was thought too delicate a question to be the subject of a survey?
Simon Courtauld
Previous page
