743
Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MOTT-RADCLYFFE.] the right hon. Gentleman as the great exponent of the extraordinary theory that all we have to do to stop Com- munism encroaching further westward is to erect a barrier which can neither be got over nor got through provided that the material with which it is built clusively Socialist material. That is quite ridiculous.
ex-
I do not know whether some of those who live in France, Belgium or Holland or elsewhere may gain some confidence or hope from the fact that, there is a Conference either about to take place or taking place in a very nice country house not far from the boundaries of my constituency, where Socialist delegates from seven countries are to discuss the international control of basic industries but not, I fancy, the international control of Buscot Park.
Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East): I am interested in this part of the hon. Gentle- man's speech. I am sure that he is sup- porting Western Union; but he has spent the last few minutes indicating that he resents the Socialists of Europe getting together to discuss which is the best way of getting a united Europe. Why, if he believes in United Europe, should he object to Europe's Socialists seeking unity? I am not so partisan. I would welcome any sign of the Tories losing their insularity and getting together with Conservatives of other Western Union countries to work out a common view of Conservatism. It would do them a lot of good and make their support for Western Union a great deal less airy and more practical. I must say I resent his partisan insinuations-
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not object to the conference meeting at Buscot Park. I only used that as an illustration. I want to see where this Socialist bulwark theory leads us. The threat from Communism is a world threat and is not confined to Europe. Therefore, if we must erect a Socialist barrier to stop the Iron Curtain from coming farther westward in Europe that barrier must also be extended to other parts of the world, so the argument presumably runs.
Would the Chancellor of the Duchy apply Socialism as a condition of inter- national co-operation to countries in the Middle East? Are our relations with
110 A 22
Foreign Affairs
744
Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Egypt to be governed by whether or not in those terri- tories there is in existence a National Health Service, which, in return for a weekly contribution, provides no false teeth? That is the most ridiculous theory for any British statesman to propose in connection with British foreign policy. Would the Chancellor of the Duchy care to reflect what his own position would have been when Chancellor of the Ex- chequer but for the flow of American dollars freely given without any political strings attached to them?
I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite to learn to sing the same tune. They must realise that they cannot talk about liqui- dating the British Empire in one breath and Britain's position as a world Power in the next breath. Foreign countries do not understand that kind of contradictory language. A world Power cannot, for very long, remain a world Power when governed by men with small minds. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must now and again try and look at themselves through the world's eyes, rather than to look at the world exclusively through the eyes of binoculars provided by Trans- port House. Let them fight the cold war with increasing vigour. Let them tell us, if necessary in Secret Session, what has already been achieved in the sphere of joint defence plans. Above all, let them act with far greater speed, lest Western civilisation should disintegrate in bits and pieces in front of our eyes while we stand hopelessly by in the role of nationalised spectators.
1.11 p.m.
Mr. Edelman (Coventry, West): I hope to deal later with some of the observations that have just been made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe). I want to speak pri- marily about Anglo-French relations, be- cause I regard good relations with France as being the corner-stone for Western Union. When I listened yesterday to my right hon. Friend speaking about recent negotiations with France, I could not help feeling that the susceptibilities of France had not been sufficiently considered, and that our diplomacy towards France dur- ing the last year or so had paid very little regard to some of the deepest feel- ings of Frenchmen. When my right hon. Friend spoke about French susceptibili- ties, he spoke of them rather as if they
745
Foreign Affairs 10 DECEMBER 1948
were the product of some kind of hyper- sensitivity of character. In point of fact, the things about which Frenchmen feel so profoundly today are matters which affect their very existence as a nation, and, more than that, the very existence of Western Europe. For that reason, I should like to say something about what I regard as being essential for good Anglo-French relations.
I was surprised the other night to hear Members opposite objecting violently to the aid which has been given by British Socialists to Socialists in France. I was particularly surprised because the objec- tions they were expressing had only a few days previously been expressed in even more violent terms by the French Com- munists. It is an extraordinary thing that those in France who resented most fiercely the fact that British Socialists had provided the Populaire with financial aid were the French Communists, who coupled the attack on this aid from Britain with a most violent attack against M. Moch, the Socialist Minister of the Interior, who had been largely respon- sible for ending the wave of strikes.
Mr. Piratin (Mile End): I am sure that the hon. Member wants to keep to the facts. He will recall the facts are that it was M. Moch who wanted to take action against the Communists, and it was they who brought in a resolution concerning the Populaire which they would not other- wise have brought in.
Mr. Edelman : That interruption merely reinforces my argument, that in France those most actively opposing Socialism are those who were most actively opposed to this aid being given to French Socialists by British Socialists.
Mr. Piratin: They were not opposed to aid.
Mr. Edelman: It establishes that in France the forces that are today most energetic and successful in resisting the Communists, and in preserving the values of Western Civilisation, are those forces, of which the French Socialist Party forms a part. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be discouraged from authorising aid of this kind to those poli- tical parties which comprise the Third Force in France, because it is precisely these parties which best guarantee the stability of France and the maintenance of good relations with Britain.
110 A 23
Foreign Affairs
746
But there are certain things on which all Frenchmen are united, whatever their internal political differences. One of the most fundamental of these is the question of security. In France today, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, all parties are united in the determination that French security shall be maintained. It is for that reason that I feel doubtful about the way in which the settlement of the Ruhr has been handled. I do not think it is sufficient, as my right hon. Friend indicated, merely to have in- formed the French of decisions that have been taken on the Ruhr. The French are more actively concerned in that matter than any other nation. They have felt the effect of German invasion three times in the last hundred years, and they want to
make sure that the Ruhr, both strategically and economically, is not likely to become a menace to France.
Here is the dilemma which Britain and America face in dealing with the Ruhr. Britain and America want to make Western Germany viable, but they can only do so by stimulating its industries and increasing the exports from the Ruhr so that Western Germany as a whole will be able to pay its way. It has been esti- mated that in order that Western Germany should be able to pay its way, exports have to be inflated to something like £300 million per annum. Under present arrangements that obviously can only be done at the expense of British and French exports. It is obvious that it is impossible to increase the export out- put of Western German industries without at the same time doing harm to the British and French economies. It is also clear that if the industries of Western Germany are to be stimulated, there is the difficulty that by so doing we shall increase the war potential of Western Germany. And so we again find the paradox, that on the one hand the Western Powers concerned with their own security want to damp down Western Germany's production, and on the other hand want to increase that production in order to make Western Germany pay its way. And as an extension of the paradox, whereas, on the one side, there is the process of dismantling those industries likely to be of help to the German export trade, on the other side, there is the of attempt to increase the capacity Germany's export industries. The recent