Transatlantic Clout Is Thatcher’s Ace : Britain’s Iron Lady May Be Abrasive, but Also Unbeatable

Margaret Thatcher has had more international impact than any other British prime minister since Winston Churchill. She has also held office longer than any other current major leader in the Western world. So whether she wins a third term in the general election that has just been called for June 11 is a question of significance far beyond the United Kingdom.

Her departure from power at this stage would leave a gap that could not easily be filled. She is the European leader most respected in the United States. And she exercises considerable influence among other European heads of government who may sometimes feel that she defends British national interests with rather too much vigor, but they acknowledge her authority nonetheless.

This ability to carry weight on both sides of the Atlantic is particularly important now that NATO is in some disarray over how best to respond to Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s proposals for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. As the argument rages within Western Europe and threatens to damage transatlantic relations, Thatcher provides a stabilizing influence that would be much missed.

No successor could hope to immediately fill that role so effectively. It took Thatcher herself some time to build up the authority she now carries. But her most likely replacement, the Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock, is committed to policies that would actually be damaging to NATO.

It should be emphasized that the election of a Labor government would not mean that Britain was about to leave NATO. Labor leaders take every opportunity to stress their loyalty to the Western alliance. Nor do I believe that Labor would swiftly implement all its non-nuclear defense policies.

The removal of American nuclear bases from Britain would probably be delayed indefinitely by apparently endless consultation with the United States and other allies. But for a British government even to come to office with such commitments would undermine confidence within NATO.

An outright victory for Labor is not, however, expected in this election. Opinion polls and last week’s local government elections all suggest that another victory for Thatcher’s Conservative Party is the most likely outcome.

The Conservatives will be challenged not only by Labor but also by the Alliance of Social Democrats and Liberals. There were serious differences last year between these two parties over nuclear defense policy, but those have been patched up.

The Alliance is wholehearted in its commitment to NATO; it would not seek the withdrawal of American nuclear bases from Britain. It also wants to keep Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, although it would cancel the program to replace the Polaris nuclear submarines with Trident.

There is some inconsistency in favoring the independent deterrent in principle, but then rejecting what most British military experts now consider the most effective means of keeping it up to date.

An Alliance government would not, however, present any difficulty for other Western countries. Indeed, it would cooperate more enthusiastically with the European community than any other British administration.

But an overall majority of seats for the Alliance in the next House of Commons would be the most surprising election result of all. It is no more than a theoretical possibility. A Labor victory, while surprising, would not be so astonishing.

A more serious prospect is a “hung Parliament” in which no single party has an overall majority. If this were the outcome, nobody could be sure what kind of government would then hold office.

The Alliance might form a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labor, or there could be a minority government with another election a few months later.

A hung Parliament would present Thatcher with grave difficulties: It is against her instincts to compromise with political opponents. So as the campaign begins the critical question is whether she can win another overall majority of seats.

The answer will be influenced to some extent by Labor’s defense policy, which remains a damaging electoral issue for Kinnock. But, as in most elections around the world, domestic issues and the personalities of party leaders are likely to be more important.

There is still a high level of unemployment, but it has begun to fall. Personal taxes were cut in the annual budget two months ago, and prosperity is rising for the majority of people who have jobs.

Everything could still go wrong for Thatcher in the course of the campaign. British political history has quite a few examples of dominating prime ministers who were denied apparently certain victories through overconfidence.

Thatcher is not so popular at home as she is abroad. Many people find her powerful personality rather too abrasive. But as she seeks to become the first British party leader this century to win three general elections in a row, she has one great asset: She looks more capable of running a strong government than any of her challengers.