WHAT FOR ?
SIR,--Mr. Christopher Hollis, in his admirable article 'What For?' quotes my letter to the Times of February 13, in which I said that the Cyprus Bases contain no airfields. I did, burl must correct that statement. There are airfields in the base areas. But the ability to land and take off from airfields in the base areas no more converts these bases into air bases than the ability to land on the coast of the air base areas enables them to be described as naval bases. The contention I made, and which Mr. Hollis so powerfully reinforces, is that by themselves these base areas are indefensible and could not last out for a day if Britain was involved in a war; and no amount of sovereignty can alter this fact. So far, the British Government have refused to say why they insist on sovereignty: and in default of any
authoritative statement, they can hardly he surprised that rumour and perhaps misrepresentation should prevail.
When I wrote to the Times I was at a loss to under- stand why the Government were so obstinate. Since then I have become aware of evidence, which, if true, can perhaps explain their coyness. Alastair Buchan, the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies, in his recent book, NATO in the 1960s, has this to say about Britain's nuclear deterrent (p. 64):
When it was decided to base the British Deter- rent on the V-Bomber Force, it was also decided to concentrate that force primarily in the United Kingdom, rather than disperse it in the British colonial possessions around the perimeter of Russia (on the analogy of SAC), partly for reasons of range, partly for sound political reasons which have become stronger ever since. The only exception to this policy has been Cyprus, where a base has been considered essen- tial to fulfil Britain's commitments to CENTO.
The Institute of Strategic Studies is, of course, not an official body, nor does its Director have access to classified material. But both the Institute and its
Director are exceedingly well informed.
If the Cyprus bases are indeed launching points for the nuclear deterrent, this would explain the coyness of the Government. It would also make a nonsense of Cypriot 'Independence.
Now, more than ever, should the Government have the courage of their convictions, and explain, and if need be defend in Parliament, their policy on the Cyprus bases.—Yours faithfully,
PATRICK CART-P II11.1.1 PS
30 Cadogan Place,. SW 1
Previous page
