The British Right

👤 Robin Ramsay  

The Economic League

Labour Research (April 1988) have produced a written version of the essential content of the two World in Action programmes on it, with current personnel and the names of some 350 British companies which have funded the EL since 1972. In line with the thesis suggested by White in his essay (see The Tory Right Between the Wars in Lobster 15) the vast majority of those companies are from the domestic manufacturing sector of the British economy.

The report (The Observer 27 March 1988) that the leader of the electricians’ union, Eric Hammond, had been the guest speaker at an Economic League lunch, should come as little surprise. The anti-socialist elements in the British labour movement – i.e. the majority of it – have never regarded groups like the Economic League and Common Cause as anything but allies, albeit allies they chose not to be seen with in public. Hammond surely isn’t the only British union leader to have a decent lunch with the League. He just got found out.

Black Flag (BM Hurricane, London WC1N 3XX) ran some material on the Economic League in their issue of 21 March 1988. Though inferior to the Labour Research version, it contained this material on contributions made by British United Industrialists, the laundry for money from British capital to the British right. It is reproduced here. Does anybody know what ‘Progress Trust’ and ‘Drummonds Bank – Free Enterprise’ refer to? This, as far as we know, is the first time anyone has found out what BUI spend their money on.

BUI 1987 CONTRIBUTIONS LIST

  • Aims of Industry – £15,000.
  • Coalition for Peace through Security – £7,000.
  • Conservative Board of Finance (Scotland) – £18,900.
  • Drummonds Bank – Free Enterprise – £230,000.
  • Economic League – £18,000.
  • Progress Trust – £7,500.
  • Scottish Conservative & Unionist Central Office – £3,300.
  • Lothian Conservative Association Rates Campaign – £500.
  • Trustees of the Tory Reform Group – £2,000.
  • Truemid – £6,000.
  • Young Enterprise – £10,000.
  • TOTAL £318,400.

Labour Research (October 1987) produced a very useful pull together of the basic information on some of the groups clustered around the right-wing of the Tory Party. Some are the old favourites – Aims, Adam Smith, IEA etc – but some are the more recent and obscure of them, including: Centre for Research into Communist Economics, Policy Search, the Ross McWhirter Foundation and the Research Foundation for the Study of Terrorism. (Illustrated is its notepaper listing – thanks to Phil Edwards for this).

The Research Foundation for the Study of Terrorism

TRUSTEES

  • Professor Paul Wilkinson MA (Chairman);
    Professor of International Relations, University of Aberdeen
  • Michael Ivens CBE
  • Norris McWhirter CBE
  • John Newton Scott OBE TD

COUNCIL

  • The Duke of Valderano (Chairman);
    Lecturer and former instructor in anti-terrorism
  • Colin Beer;
    Former Chief Superintendent of Police.
  • Don Emilio Beladiez, Marques de la Conquista Real;
    Ambassador of Spain
  • Lt General Jose de Bettencourt Rodrigues;
    Former Minister for the Army, former Commander in Chief Portuguese Forces in Africa. Grand Cross of Military Merit Of Portugal.
  • Sir John Biggs-Davison MP
  • Sir Ian Easton KCB DSC;
    Former Commandant of The Royal College for Defence Studies
  • Nicholas Elliot CBE;
    Formerly Foreign Office – expert on Middle East
  • Pierre Emmanuelli;
    Secretaire Generale, Monde et Enterprise (France).
  • Ian Greig;
    Former Senior Executive, Institute for the Study of Conflict.
  • Anthony Harrigan;
    President, United States Business and Industrial Council,
    President, USIC Educational Foundation.
  • Sir Arthur Hockaday KCB CMG;
    Former Assistant Secretary General (Planning & Policy) NATO
    Former Permanent Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence    .
  • Commander William Hucklesby QPM FRGS;
    Former Head of Anti-Terrorist Squad.
  • Dr Ortwin Lowack (West Germany)
  • The Count of Nuvolara;
    Professor at the University of Milan.
  • Monsignore Giorgio Orioli, Viscount of Oriola;
    Chorepiscipus of Antioch of the Syrians and Procurator at the Holy See.
  • Ronald Payne;
    Writer on Terrorism
  • Norman Reddaway CBE:
    Former Assistant Under Secretary of State, FCO and Ambassador to Poland.
  • Sir Julian Ridsdale CBE MP
  • Dr Edward Rozek PhD MA;
    Professor of Politics and Comparative Ideologies, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.
  • Dr Alan Sabrosky PhD MA
  • The Duke of St Albans OBE
    Former Colonel in Intelligence
  • T F Utley CBE
  • Dr M H Waring PhD MA (Brazil)

Norris McWhirter

Now in charge of the resources generated by Guinness Book of Records, McWhirter has been instrumental in the creation of three of the groups on the British right – the Freedom Association, the Ross McWhirter Foundation and the Research Centre for the Study of Terrorism.

In the Sunday Telegraph (13 December 1987) McWhirter quoted ‘evidence’ from the German-based International Society for Human Rights to show that government forces in Mozambique and Zimbabwe have “carried through a programme of murder, torture and other atrocities.” Groups like ISHR exist to provide evidence (‘evidence’) that the independent black African states are as bad, if not worse, than South Africa; that the Soviet bloc countries violate human rights at least as badly as the death-squad states of the American empire.

These are the standard lines, the raison d’etre of three of the recent British right-wing groups – International Freedom Foundation (UK), the Committee for a Free Nicaragua (UK), both discussed below, and the Institute for the Study of Terrorism – imitating their counterparts in the United States. All three are preoccupied with obscuring the uses of state terror by US-backed regimes, especially in Central and South America, and/or convincing the world that even if the horror stories about death squads are true – which they dispute – exactly the same thing is going on in the non-US-dominated parts of the world. (And at least those death squads are on our, ‘the West’s’ side, for Christ’s sake.)

Though they talk a lot about ‘terrorism’, they don’t use the word in the way we do. For them ‘terrorism’ is the activities of all anti-imperialist movements in the Third World. Israel, with its unwanted Palestinian population, is an enthusiastic supporter of this line and had a major hand in launching it via the 1984 Jonathan Institute conference. (See the book review, Lobster 13 p 20). The Israeli state’s interest lies in getting this new definition of ‘terrorism’ into common currency so they can assign the PLO to it, thus justifying their continuing repression.)

Jilian Becker/Institute for the Study of Terrorism

The most explicit recent British exposition of this position is in an essay by Jilian Becker, Director of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism, in The Salisbury Review (December 1987), ‘Graveyard Mozambique’. For while Ms. Becker can appear to be reasonable, verging on the anodyne (as in her piece for the now defunct London Daily News, June 26 1987), in the columns of the right-wing Salisbury Review, what I take to be her true colours are on display. And very unpleasant they are, too.

She tells us, inter alia;

  • that the MNR (RENAMO) in Mozambique “looked to Rhodesia for help”, ignoring the fact that we know, from the recent autobiography of the former head of Rhodesian Intelligence, that RENAMO was a creation of theirs and was handed over “lock stock and barrel” to South African Intelligence when the white Rhodesian state finally fell. (See Ken Flowers, Serving Secretly, London 1987, chapter 10);
  • that RENAMO is “not as disciplined as its counterpart in Angola”, when almost every not violently right-wing source is agreed that RENAMO is nothing more or less than an army of black gangsters raping and pillaging on a scale rarely seen since The 100 Years War;
  • that RENAMO have “the willing support of villagers”, when most other sources are agreed that they are a source of universal terror.

She tries to convince the reader that the parcel bombs which killed FRELIMO founder Mondlane and ANC member Ruth First were probably the work of their own people; she describes the ANC’s Joe Slovo as a “KGB Colonel”; and gives a long account of the deterioration of the Mozambique economy without mentioning that RENAMO, with overt support from South Africa and covert support from the US, have spent the last decade trying to wreck it.

Almost none of this is sourced, and on the two occasions she quotes a source she offers us those famously objective people at The Heritage Foundation and the Moon-owned Washington Times.

Her essay on Mozambique, as well as part of the on-going attempts on the right to legitimise RENAMO, is also the springboard for a sustained attack on the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She offers the now familiar hard-right American position: all the armies currently being run by the CIA/BOSS/the Israeli state – all the ‘contras’ – are “genuine national liberation movements which are already pro-Western” and should, therefore, be supported. It’s the dream of ‘roll-back’ in the Third World. The British state and to a lesser extent the Reagan Administration – certainly the State Department – are wilfully backing the wrong horses.

But there is slightly more to it than this, for Becker is creeping up on a position not so very dissimilar to the kinds of conspiracy theories popular during ‘roll-back’s’ hey-day, in the early 1950s:

“Let us, for the sake of argument accept the explanations for our giving aid to Mozambique. Perhaps the Foreign Office really does know that by these means Mozambique will be won for the West. But is that truly the aim in mind? If we stand back and look at southern Africa as a whole, and we consider British policy in the wider region, doubt rushes in.”

She then lists Mozambique, Angola (where the British government recognises the MPLA, not UNITA), Namibia (where the British government backs “the Marxists, Soviet-aided terrorist organisation SWAPO”), Zimbabwe (Britain supports Mugabe), South Africa (where “Britain has shown a friendly and encouraging face to the ANC – the only terrorist organisation in the world which is actually controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and supplied by the Russians with arms free of charge”!)

This line is familiar, of course. It’s exactly the line adopted in the post WW2 attack on the US State Department – “there are 243 card-carrying Communists … ” etc. Only the names of the countries have changed. Ms. Becker could be writing for the China Lobby.

One amusing game to play is trying to imagine what would happen if the British government did, in fact, switch sides and support UNITA, RENAMO and the rest. Who would we have on our side among the great community of nations? Israel, Taiwan, South Africa, South Korea (if the Americans let them) and some of the choicer death-squad states of the Americas. In short, the pariah states. Ms. Becker seems oblivious to the basic facts of life, such as Britain’s membership of NATO and the EEC.

The real irony is that this is all being done too late. The Republicans are going to lose the American presidential election. George Bush is slowly drowning under the mountain of coke some of his flunkeys were running to raise funds for the Contras in the new privatised American imperialism. With Dukakis – from Kennedy family territory – the next President (unless something spectacular is staged, say an assassination that could be dumped on the left), much of the US state support for this know-nothing revival on the right will vanish. And the yahoos will look back on the Reagan years and ask themselves what they really did get out of it in foreign policy. The invasion of Grenada?

To be fair to Ms. Becker, she is probably recounting this nauseating rubbish under instruction from whoever is running the Institute for the Study of Terrorism. The presence of Lord Chalfont, allegedly “the CIA’s man in the House of Lords” as the nominal head of IST is suggestive. However, without having a shred of evidence to support this view, I suspect we will eventually discover that IST is a front for the Israeli state, or a joint South African/Israeli operation. For if we assume that she can’t possibly believe this nonsense, it is Israel and South Africa which have the biggest and most immediate interest in the conception of ‘terrorism’ at the heart of all this.

International Freedom Foundation (UK) – IFF(UK)

Committee for A Free Nicaragua (UK) – CFN(UK)

These are two recent additions to the long list of right-wing groups which have circled their wagons round the Thatcher administration in support of the greater lunacies of the American right.

CFN(UK) is screened from view by PO box number, no phone, and no personnel listed in its literature. It was apparently conceived in December 1985 at a two-day pro-Contra conference in London. Speakers included the ubiquitous Alfred Sherman (then still with the Centre for Policy Studies), Brian Crozier, and a trio of Americans – Charles Lichenstein, Robert Dornan and Lynn Bouchey. (Searchlight January 1986)

The conference was organised by ‘radical right’ Young Conservative, Marc Gordon, after an idea from the (soon to be) founder of CFN(UK), David Hoiles. Another ‘radical right’ Young Tory, Hoiles made a highly publicised visit to Central America in 1985 where he went ‘on patrol’ with the ‘freedom fighters’, was photographed holding an MI6 rifle and so forth.

Hoiles is fronting the UK end of an American operation. The original idea of CFN came from one Charles Moser of the Free Congress and Education Foundation. In 1982 Moser set up committees in America for Nicaragua, Kampuchea, El Salvador along the lines of the extant Committee for a Free Afghanistan. The original CFN had four members, two of them with connections to the Unification Church (the Moonies): Dan Fefferman of the Freedom Leadership Foundation, a Moonie Front; and Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing pressure group which harasses the American media if it strays from a hard-right line. Irvine writes for the Moonie paper, the Washington Times, and shares an office with Dan Holgriew, former editor of the Moonie magazine, The Rising Sun. (This paragraph based on Covert Action Information Bulletin, numbers 21 and 22, 1984)

Funding for CFN(UK) has not been made public. At the time of the initial conference there was the usual guff about ‘British businessmen who wish to remain anonymous’, but the clue may lie in the presence on the platform at the launch gig of Brian Crozier. For it was revealed (New Statesman 29th May 1987) that Crozier was running the International Freedom Fund Establishment, apparently a funnel for Heritage Foundation money (or somebody else’s money laundered through Heritage) – at least $140, 000 so far. Those with longish memories will recognise this as a re-run of Crozier’s failed late 1970s attempt to do the same thing, the Freedom Blue Cross venture which went belly-up after one gig. Crozier, of course, isn’t prepared to tell us on whom he is spending this money, but CFN(UK) looks a good contender. And if he isn’t fronting the money it is hard to see why the old bugger was asked onto the platform.

The three Americans present at the CFN(UK) launch are rather interesting. Lynn Bouchey is a prominent member of the Council on Inter-American Affairs, one of the hard-right pressure groups campaigning for the Contras. Bouchey is another one who has had dealings with the Moonies, organising and chairing a number of conferences of the Moonie front CAUSA. (Covert Action Information Bulletin No 22)

Charles Lichenstein, a former minor US diplomat at the United Nations, I have only seen mentioned as a speaker at conferences organised by another Moonie front, the International Security Council. At one of them, in Copenhagen, he was joined by Alfred Sherman and the former Tory MP, Patrick Wall. (Washington Times 21 Jan. 1986)

The third American at the CFN(UK) gig was Congressman Charles Dornan. Dornan is one of the original four-man Advisory Board for the International Freedom Review, the pseudo-academic foreign policy journal recently begun (first issue August 1987) by the second of the recent American arrivals in London, the International Freedom Foundation (IFF). The aforementioned Charles Lichenstein is the Chairman of the IFF journal’s Advisory Board.

(I’m not really equipped to do the kind of detailed biographical research I need on the new American right, and more information on any of these people would be welcome.)

IFF(UK) is being fronted by Marc Gordon, the former ‘radical right’ Young Conservative who organised the launch gig for CFN(UK) mentioned above. Like Hoiles, Gordon has been on a jaunt to Central America (News on Sunday 19 May 1987). Unlike CFN(UK), IFF(UK) does have an address and a phone.

IFF’s main American branch is headed by one Jack Abramoff, former Chair of the College Republican National Committee (which sounds not unlike Britain’s Conservative Students which spawned Hoiles and Young.) I first noticed Abramoff in heavy-weight far-right American circles as one of the committee organising the first Larry McDonald Memorial Dinner. (Conservative Digest February 1985). McDonald, a Bircher, was killed when KAL 007 was shot down. Predictably, some of the US far-right think it was shot down to kill McDonald. He thus became a ‘martyr’. It’s an ill wind ….

McDonald was the founder of Western Goals, and that organisation overlaps with IFF. Western Goals Board Member, Congressman Philip Crane, is also one of the original four members of the Advisory Board of IFF’s journal. (The latest issue of that journal shows that Senator Jesse Helms has been added to its Advisory Board. This helps locate the IFF, for Helms is a flat-out ‘know nothing’ racist. See the rather cautious but nonetheless revealing biography of Helms, Hard Right by Ernest B. Furgurson, Norton, London and New York, 1986)

Western Goals also set up a UK branch a couple of years ago, though little has been heard of them since. Like IFF(UK) and CFN(UK), Western Goals (UK) used former ‘radical right’ Young Conservatives, including A.V.R. Smith, Paul Masson and Stuart Northolt. Last reference I saw to Masson, he had been put on the UK governing body (sic) of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN).

IFF(UK) and CFN(UK) advertise each other’s publications in their mail-outs. One of the handful of books they are pushing is Combat On Communist Territory edited by Charles Moser, £5.95 from IFF(UK) 10 Storey’s Gate, London SW1P 3AY). Moser, it turns out, is Chairman of the Department of Slavic Languages at George Washington University in Washington. Alas, like so many academics on the right, Moser turns his brain off when he moves from his academic speciality to politics, and this is one of the worst – and most dishonest – books it has ever been my misfortune to attempt to read.

It contains essays on wars (not ‘combat’) in Lithuania and the Ukraine at the end of WW2, and Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan and Cambodia today; an hilarious account of the invasion of Grenada and a trio of odds and ends, including Moser’s ‘Towards a theory of anti-Communist insurgency’.

As research, these essays are about as reliable as Stalinist history. They are all loaded in the same way. The account of the war in the Ukraine forbears to mention the widespread collaboration between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Nazis; Nicaragua – no mention of the CIA; Angola – no mention of the CIA; Mozambique – no RENAMO atrocities, nothing on its origins in Rhodesian Intelligence; and so on.

The only value this volume has is as a demonstration of how the right produces propaganda, and who it uses as sources. In the essay on the Ukraine, for example, all the key sources are from one journal, the emigre-controlled Ukrainian Quarterly (including one extraordinary-sounding essay apparently recounting how the Ukrainian Jews fought with the Nationalists against the Soviet Union.) The essays on Africa are almost entirely sourced back to South African publications – including government publications – though the Institute for the Study of Conflict’s Peter Janke and David Rees are also there.

As you progress through this collection they get funny, in a grim sort of way. Al Santoli subtitles his essay on Cambodia, ‘freedom’s front-line in Southeast Asia’, a rhetoric I thought had been killed off by the war in Vietnam. But the real killer is the account of the invasion of Grenada. This includes one of the great unintentionally funny passages:

“The Seals also reported they were taking AK-47 fire from an old fortress next to Fort Frederick which was flying the revolutionary banner: a red ball on a white field nearly identical to the Japanese flag (sic) …. An A-7 Corsair from the USS Independence roared in to dive-bomb the old fort, silencing its guns. It was later learned that the installation was actually Grenada’s mental hospital (sic). Inmates told reporters that PRA soldiers had removed their flag from Fort Frederick and hoisted at the mental asylum, in addition to giving the deranged inmates AK-47’s and instructing them to fire at US aircraft (sic) “. (p163)

One of the few virtues of the recent James Adams book, Secret Armies (London 1987) is a thoroughly patronising account of this invasion. His version of the death of the mental patients (p243) reads:

“An air strike was called in on Fort Frederick later that morning which missed and levelled the island’s mental hospital three thousand yards away..”

Adams, incidentally, appears to be a conduit for Ministry of Defence disinformation. For example, in May last year he smeared Wallace and Holroyd in the Los Angeles Times, and more recently joined in the Sunday Times’ attempt to exculpate the SAS from their assassinations in Gibraltar. (On this latter story see Private Eye 27 May 1988) And Secret Armies contains one or two ‘lines’ that are familiar to anyone who has read Wallace’s material: e.g. the story that the KGB was going to/actually did – which isn’t clear – dump radioactive waste around nuclear submarine bases in Scotland and cause a nuclear scare.

Charles Moser, in his attempt to cobble together the nonsense in his book into a ‘theory’, says that the invasion of Grenada is included

“to emphasise the fact that even a well-established communist regime can be cleanly (sic) overthrown with the application of sufficient force.”

Rollback lives!

Garbage like that in the Moser book is the standard fare of the IFF’S Freedom Bulletin. These gems are in No 2:

“Although he has been out of office for seven years, President Jimmy Carter continues to have an impact on the political situation in Central America. By packing the State Department with people committed to his policy of socialism for Third World countries.. (emphasis added) Jose Napolean Duarte, an avowed socialist…… the State Department and the CIA immediately launched a smear campaign against (Roberto) d’Aubuisson featuring unsubstantiated links to “right-wing death squads”.”

And so on – breath-taking stuff, all of it. “There are 243 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in ……”

But does any of this matter in this country? It is certainly hard to imagine the Foreign Office taking a couple of careerist twerps like Noile and Gordon seriously. However, similar dismissive things were said (by people like me) about the Freedom Association when it first appeared. In the end, you can never be sure. In the case of these American right-wing groups, their most significant feature is the links between the staff of their parent bodies and the Moonies. No organisation with the Moonies’ money can safely be ignored.

WACL

Dotted around the world are people like me reading Asian Outlook, the magazine of the Asian Peoples’ Anti-Communist League (APACL), looking for clues to developments in WACL – and wondering if it means anything.

Owen Wilkes, author/producer of the excellent Wellington Pacific Report is doing – and wondering – the same thing. He’s just been through every issue of Asian Outlook since 1970 in search of New Zealand participants in APACL/WACL events. A long list is included in WPR No 11 (Box 9314 Wellington, New Zealand). But having assembled his list Wilkes concludes “the identified NZ WACL members in general do not seem to have much discernible influence in New Zealand”.

That is a conclusion equally true of the known UK supporters of WACL/APACL. I mention this here as the preamble to the news (sic) that the current British affiliate, the British Anti-Communist Council (BACC) has recently changed its name to the British Freedom Council. (A change, I presume, done to bring it into line with the American Freedom Council, European Freedom Council and so on.)

BFC’s leader, Peter Dally, is a regular contributor to the pages of Asian Outlook, but what do he and BFC amount to in Britain? As far as I can tell the British WACL affiliates over the years have acted solely as a respectable front for a raggedy collection of Eastern European emigre groups dumped in Britain after WW2 when their usefulness as possible anti-Soviet guerilla/intelligence agents had expired – a classic example of what Peter Dale Scott in the US has described as the ‘disposal problem’ such groups present to their sponsors.

Groups like ABN, authentic exiles from the Soviet Union’s empire, may have had their political value to the Tory Party with anti-communism as one of its central planks. But beyond representing a specific interest group in a handful of parliamentary constituencies they really don’t count in British politics; are, in effect, little more than trophies of fantasies of ‘roll-back’ which were sustained by the cold warriors of the American and British intelligence services. (on which see the interesting piece by Ed Harriman on the SIS-sponsored raids into the Baltic states after WW2 in New Statesman 13 May 1988)

The Conintern

Barely noticed at the time, the 1983 formation of the International Democratic Union (IDU) deserves our attention. IDU was a combination of the European Democrat Union (EDU) and the Pacific Democrat Union (PDU). EDU was formed in 1978 and PDU in 1982. (On IDU formation see Times 17,20,25 June 1983)

Little has been published on EDU in the British media. It appears to be an elaboration of the German Christian Social Union of Franz Joseph Strauss, and Strauss’ presence suggests that we may just be seeing the realisation of the kind of European-wide collaboration which people like Crozier hoped would emerge from contacts he (and ISC) had established with the European right via The Pinay Circle. (on which see Lobster 11). The parapolitical overlay is suggested by the involvement of Richard Allen in the IDU. (Financial Times 25 July 1985). Allen is a spook.

The PDU, funded by the USIS via the so-called ‘Project Democracy’ (on which see National Reporter Summer 1986) has been funding the right in New Zealand and Fiji. (Wellington Confidential June 1987). Operating in Fiji is the Hans Seidel Foundation,

“the foreign arm of Franz Joseph Strauss’ Christian Social Union. The HSF functions as a West German version of the National Endowment for Democracy/Pacific Democrat Union, works closely with the Heritage Foundation, and in Fiji has been involved in aid projects, TV programming and assistance to the Alliance Party. HSF is regarded with considerable suspicion in Fiji. It is credited with spending millions of dollars on a Fijian grassroots cultural revival which has been a thin cover for the Tankei movement.” (US Involvement in the Fiji coup d’etat in Lobster 14)

IDU is producing a magazine, Democracy International (Suite 48, Westminster Palace Garden, London SWIP IRR). The pilot issue appeared a few months ago and contained the usual nonsense about the US promoting ‘freedom and democracy’ in Central America and so on. It is being edited by Scott Hamilton, a former Conservative Central Office worker.

IDU has a more recent rival international organisation, the Committee for a Community of Democracies (CCD), which has a British section run by Peace Through NATO person, Ken Aldred. CCD’S bumpf is vague in the extreme and the organisation appears to have done little beyond hold an inaugural conference (funded by the National Endowment for Democracy).

With so little information available, interpretation is almost absurd. But my guess would be that both IDU and CCD represent different ideological strata in the international right. With the World Anti-Communist League at the neo-fascist end, IDU appears to represent the semi-respectable hard-right and CCD the more centrist right. (This latter point is suggested by the involvement in Britain in CCD of centrists like Aldred, Francis Pym and Lord Lever.)

CCD(UK) Oldebourne House, 46-47 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JB

Accessibility Toolbar