763
Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS [MAJOR LEGGE-BOURKE.] Israel is a matter we should contemplate at all. I think it is a ghastly mistake, particularly at the moment.
I warn the Under-Secretary who is to reply of one thing which I think may be likely to happen, if it has not already happened. That is, that certain Arab leaders will come forward and make approaches to right hon. and hon. Mem- bers in this country and try to persuade them to do something which the Arab leaders ought to do themselves and things which they do not dare do for fear of recriminations for their own people if they did them. I think he will know to what I am referring. I sincerely hope he will emulate Mr. Agag on the matter. It is extremely important that we do not get led into doing something which may be directed more from personal aims than national aims of other people who have not the courage to do it for themselves.
We should also realise that the name King Abdullah has chosen, or his Parlia- ment have chosen, for the Arab part of Palestine is South Syria. I hope we shall bear in mind that South Syria may one day become Greater Syria and perhaps that is behind the plan. We should be very wary that we do not get landed into supporting Greater Syria before we know where we are. It is a matter which re- quires careful consideration and it is certainly one which will turn the Middle East upside down.
I
As to my right hon. Friend's sugges- tion about having a representative at Tel-Aviv, he said it was practical politics to do it. My own feeling is that there has been too much practical politics in the Middle East for far too long. believe that what we should now try to do is to bring back some respect for our sense of justice. Let us be clear in our minds that we cannot hope for peace in the Middle East or anywhere else unless we first establish justice. If anyone thinks that Israel is being established on a basis of justice, I consider that their sense of justice is past praying for.
Turning to the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made about the future of the Italian Colonies, everyone in the House must agree that it is a very im- portant suggestion indeed. No doubt my right hon. Friend has good information, but I would say that his suggestion may lead to a fear among the Arab section
110 A 32
Foreign Affairs
764
of the population that if the United Nations Assembly agree to the sugges- tion, the Western Powers might tend to shoulder out the Arabs from having any say in their own future and might try to settle the matter between themselves with the Arabs scarcely getting a word in edge- ways. Let us remember that these two African countries of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania are countries which have a large Arab population. Together they have a population of about a million. That of Tripolitania is by far the largest -more than 800,000. For that reason we must have regard to the Arab point of view.
In my view some of them may be extremely unhappy at the thought of the Western Powers dealing with those lands. I have recently been in Tripolitania and I asked that question of some Arabs. That is the evidence which I obtained. It may not be as valuable as that of my right hon. Friend, but that is the evidence which I offer to compare with his.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions in regard to the future of the Italian Colonies. I would first ask him whether His Majesty's Government consider themselves bound by the recommendations which were made, with the Minister of State as a delegate, as to what should be the future of those Colonies? Before the whole
matter was referred to the United Nations we made some recommendations, which we have never seen. I ask the Govern- ment whether they still stand by them and, if so, whether they will now publish them and let us see what they are; or, if they have changed their minds since making those recommendations whether they will now say what their policy is?
Secondly, do they realise the great problem involved as to whether Libya should be one country or three? At the present time it is divided into Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan. I believe that it will take a lot to persuade the Senussi Arabs to agree to the permanent separa- tion of Libya into three countries. With- in living memory, and for a good deal longer it has been one country. At the present time there is considerable re- sentment that it is divided. This will not only affect North Africa and the other Italian Colonies but the whole of the Middle East situation, because the leader of the Arab Liberation Committee
765
Foreign Affairs 10 DECEMBER 1948 Foreign Affairs
is Counsellor to King Ibu Saud. There- fore, the decision we take in North Africa will affect the whole Arab world. I hope that we shall tread cautiously and not ignore any representations which the Arabs put forward.
I ask the Government whether they realise that any attempt to restore the Italians as the trustees or as the sovereign nation there will either involve the Italians fighting their way in or their way being fought in for them by someone else? I desire from the Government an unqualified assurance that, no matter what the solution may be, British troops will on no account be used for that pur- pose. It is important that we should have that assurance soon.
On the question of the Italian Colonies, I would ask whether His Majesty's Gov- ernment place any weight in the case which I believe is being put forward by the Italian Government that if the Western Powers really want Italy not to go Communist Italy must have her Colonies returned to her? I know that is a difficult question which it may not be possible to answer today, but it is im- portant to know whether it is looked upon as a substantial case which is being put forward by the Italians. We should make up our minds one way or the other, and do so at an early date.
Lastly, I want to deal with the dis- quietude of mind about the United Nations. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech yesterday, said:
"Well, the United Nations is giving us grave concern as to whether it is going to face the serious problems involved.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 588.]
Other speakers have mentioned the dis- quietude of mind about the United Nations, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who re- iterated something which I said more or less in the same words during the Debate on the Address as to the bickering and unnecessary blackguarding which has gone on in the forum of the United Nations, upsetting the minds of the people of the world. I then suggested that we should wind up the United Nations with the very important safe- guards that we should keep in being the International Labour Organisation, the International Welfare Office, the Inter- national Court at The Hague, and the United Nations Association. I said that
110 A 33
766
we had built the United Nations from the wrong end. I still believe that.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today talked about advancing step by step along the functional road. What function has the United Nations served? The Foreign Secretary has said that considerable progress has been made since he last reported to the House. I agree, but how much of that progress is in any way due to the United Nations? Practically none at all. Practically all the progress has been made by agreements outside the United Nations.
I believe that we have to face up to that. How can we hope to build step by step as long as the United Nations and particularly the Security Council remains in being? My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, early in the life of this Parliament sug- gested, on the subject of the United Nations that the Charter should be re- viewed and said:
"I hope they will unanimously decide that the retention of such a provision-
that is, the veto-
"in the Charter is an anachronism in the modern world." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd
November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 613.]
In his reply the following day the Foreign Secretary said:
Great Britain will not be afraid, and will not in any way decline to have anything it does, or wants or seeks to promote discussed in open assembly, at the United Nations if necessary." He went on :
"it will be the purpose of His Majesty's Government to utilise the United Nations, may I say stretch it to the limit of its capacity from the security point of view.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 760-761.]
He certainly carried that out.
Then we have to make up our minds whether or not national sovereignty means anything to us or whether we want it to mean anything to us. We have to think for ourselves whether or not national sovereignty, if we do want it, has been increased or reduced-our own and that of others. There can be no doubt in the world today that the United Nations have served two import- ant purposes. They have increased the national sovereignty of the Soviet Union and they have served the Zionist cause in Israel. Those two things they have achieved, but not any other thing. I