UNDERGRADUATE PAGE
British Students' Dilemma
By B. R. WILSON (University College, Leicester) FOR over two years now the British National Union of Students, with its membership of over 100,000 under- graduates, technical students and trainees, has suffered Serious internal stress and strain because of its affiliation to the International Union of Students. The I.U.S. has its headquarters in Prague. It was founded just after the war, and the N.U.S. was in it from the start. The aim of 1.U.S. was to provide an international meeting-ground for national student organisations, and to facilitate co-operation between them, to encourage sport, travel and cultural activities among the students of all nations. Gradually the I.U.S. became dominated by the Communists of the East European bloc ; its congresses became exhibitions of the " solidarity ' and " culture ' of the students of Eastern Europe.
One after another the national unions of the students in the free world disaffiliated from the I.U.S.—or they remained stead- fast in their decisions to have nothing to do with it. Such was the case with the Scandinavian unions, with Holland, Belgium, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The British N.U.S. remained—determined, whilst dissociating itself from I.U.S. politics, to " put the British point of view."
As time went by, I.U.S. propaganda became more hostile to Britain, which it branded as the suppressor of colonial peoples.
The I.U.S. openly supported the bandits in Malaya. Many British students were troubled, and in July, 1949, one of the Oxford colleges proposed that the N.U.S. should disaffiliate from the I.U.S. The matter was shelved—at the behest of the N.U.S. executive, who wanted to go on putting " the British point of viev.t." The phrase soon became a rallying cry. Certainly the leaders of the N.U.S. were quite sincere, and they argued con- tinually in favour of sound democratic principles at the councils of the International Union. But several stormy issues arose. The Communist-controlled I.U.S. executive broke its constitu- tion ; after the Soviet-Tito fracas it expelled the Yugoslays. The N.U.S. made its protest—but continued its appeasement policy, remaining in the I.U.S.
The Russian-sponsored peace campaign came, together with the Stockholm Peace Petition, and was wholeheartedly supported by the I.U.S. The N.U.S. executive showed signs of doubt, but they went to the Prague Congress in the summer of 1950, having been mandated to take no part in the political activities of the I.U.S., and to sign only amended versions of the petition. There was, so they thought, still hope. At Prague the British delegates were subjected to a disgusting display of Soviet propaganda tactics. They were insulted: they were mocked: they had to listen while the assembly lauded the North Koreans and chanted the name of Stalin for minutes on end. The British delegates sat silent, but when they came back a large majority of the official delegation recommended the termination of the relatioriship with the I.U.S.
There were, of course, others who opposed disaffiliation. A large number of members of the fellow-travelling Student Labour Federation had also been to Prague, and these now urged the British students to go on putting " the British point of view." The rallying cry still had its value, but was being used by a very different set of people. Lack of continuity in student affairs, due to the heavy annual turnover of students, -completely obscured the fact that the responsible leaders of the movement, who a year before had been anxious to stay in, were now the very people leading the demand to get out. .- . A fierce debate took place in the council of the N.U.S. held at Liverpool in November, 1950. By a narrow majority it was decided to stay in—a majority so narrow that a change of mind on the part of one large union would have reversed the decision. Many of the delegates who had gone to the council with man- dates to support staying in, and who had themselves believed in this policy. changed their minds when they heard the whole story. Unfortunately they could not change their mandates. Almost the whole of the executive resigned as a result of this decision.
To test student opinion a referendum of all members of the National Union was held. Students were asked if they considered that the best interests of British students were served by con- tinued affiliation of the N.U.S. to the I.U.S. Over 30 per cent. of the members of the N.U.S. voted, and, despite the prejudicial wording of the question, a 3,000 majority replied " No." But the referendum was only an opinion-poll, and did not reverse the council's decision. It can be readily appreciated that all those students in any way interested in the question voted (except in the few unions which refused to participate in the referendum), and that the vast majority of the remainder had not the slightest interest in the I.U.S. or in student politics. Would this majority have been so apathetic had they realised that it was their money that was being spent by the N.U.S. on the continued presenta- tion of " the British point of view "—in sums ranging between £1,000 and £L.500 each year ?
In March of this year the N.U.S. council met at Southampton. With the object of maintaining unity the executive put forward a lengthy compromise motion, influenced no doubt by the referendum's reversal of the preceding council's decision. The motion aimed at seeking a form of fraternal membership within the I.U.S., so that the N.U.S., whilst paying membership fees and co-operating in all practical ways, could be dissociated from the political bias of the International Union. The council • members gave a large majority to this solution.
But is it really a solution ? The I.U.S. leaders have been most concerned not to lose British support. Although they dubbed the N.U.S. leaders "Fascists " and imperialists." they have always tried to keep the N.U.S. within their organisation. Clearly, whilst they still have a member in the free world, they have a claim to the title " international." But the I.U.S. has no category of " fraternal membership " ; will it be worth its while to create one ?
The I.U.S. has consistently rejected the British point of view. It refused to aid individual travel between East and West Europe.
so that it could concentrate effort on holding " cultural rallies." Obviously individual travel has no propaganda value ; things cannot be engineered to create a good impression as they can at an international " peace " congress. On the constitutional side the irregular expulsion of the Yugoslays brought forth British protests, but those protests have been ignored. Even at the recent winter sports games in Rumania the I.U.S. refused to satisfy the British delegates that the Russian competitors were in fact bona fide students. Meanwhile the leaders of the N.U.S. are obliged to go on spending the greater part of their time in futile wrangling, countering I.U.S. insults and propaganda, while so much else is left undone in student affairs at home. But it must be admitted that, notwithstanding the technical " association " of the N.U.S. with the international organisation, there is an ever-growing body of British student opinion which is opposed to the sort of idealism that leads to the perpetuation of these fruitless relationships. More and more it is being realised that many of the British students whcr want to go on putting " the British point of view " are those whose point of view is not British in any sense of the word.
Previous page
