Futile, dangerous and shameful
Three months a ,b we argued here that the absurd 'cod war should be ended. Those months have seen an Intensification of hostilities and in every respect a deterioration of the situation, which is now very grave indeed. It is difficult to comprehend the mentality of the Politicians and civil servants who have relentlessly pursued a policy which is at once futile, needless, d. ahgerous and shameful : such men are presumably intbervious to reason. But the arguments must be rehearsed again. The British policy is futile, because it cannot possibly s,neceed. The object of the confrontation was to force teeland to negotiate; but she is not going to. The action n. f the Icelandic government was technically illegal, and ILIs behaviour—spurred by violent public opinion—has It3eeti tiresome, as over the withdrawal of the 65,000 innnes offer. But the Icelanders know that they cannot '13.se. The Law of the Sea conference may succeed or fail: 2Ther way will lead to the universal establishment of 9-rnile limits. The British Government should be rather of the best way to operate its own limit. Policy is needless, because within a 200-mile British ,:ne-----indeed, within an exclusive 50-mile zone—there is 7 Potential annual catch, even operating rigorous e,,observation measures, well surpassing present conCod Ptio0 The British consumer may have to replace to some extent, with the Red-fish which the ".erthans relish and of which Iceland will allow generous catches, or the Blue Whiting which is so abundant off the coast of Scotland. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might well devote some of its energies to this end rather than taking the lead in advocating continued hostilities.
The policy is dangerous in the extreme. Iceland is not only a friendly country, she is our ally. Soon, it seems inevitable that the confrontation of British frigates and Icelandic gun-boats must lead to disaster. If that meant the sinking of an Icelandic ship it is difficult to see Iceland staying in the Western alliance. The consequences would be incalculable.
Above all, perhaps, our action is shameful. The Royal Navy is being used to bully a small and admirable country. The matter is not vital to Great Britain, although one might not know it from our Foreign Secretary, who sits for a trawling-port constituency; nor indeed from the Opposition, which has maintained a deplorable silence. One may understand the reluctance of Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues to commit themselves to a wide range of policies, or to tackle the Government on every issue, but some issues are natural gifts to oppositions. The cod war is one of them.
With intelligence and planning, and in collaboration with Iceland and our other neighbours, England can continue to have a great fishing fleet, producing large catches. For Iceland the matter is one of national survival. The Government knows that. It should act. To end the war would be generous and enlightened, and it would also be in the true national interest.
