607
Foreign Affairs
608
their very words, help to make war ot only possible but probable, and in opinion they are criminals against humanity.
Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. EDEN.] has always been the British hope and The British people have been prayer. much buffeted about in this business, much more so than they deserve. British lives have been lost. There will be some recompense for all this if the Jews find a home, and the Arabs and Jews find a lasting friendship one with the other. There is much turmoil and trouble in the world as the right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon, but there is no problem today where the Government's opportunity for action is clearer than this. I hope that they will seize it and thereby bring peace to that distracted land to which mankind and in history has owed so much.
5.40 p.m.
own
Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery): May I begin by welcoming back, as we all do, the Foreign Secretary? He has obviously benefited by his well-earned and well-deserved rest, which was too short considering the very heavy re- sponsibilities which he has been carrying for these last three years. He began by stating that his policy was the same as that which he had announced when he spoke in this House in January, and that there was no new policy. That we can understand. He then went on to say that he proposed to give to the House a progress report. We certainly had a report-indeed, a very full report-but there was no progress upon the major problems which still confront the world, or, at any rate, very little upon those greater issues.
Everyone deplores the continued and continuous unsettled state of the world, and it is depressing to find that Session after Session we have nothing in these Debates but reports of disputes, quarrels and antagonisms. It is such a melan- choly story, unrelieved by any single item of news of better understanding or good- will, still less of peace--and all that after three years since the unconditional sur- render of Germany, Japan and Italy, and after six years of that devastating world war. Not only do I, in common with all reasonable people, hate war, but I hate talk of war and still more do I hate this talk that war is inevitable. War can- not be inevitable. Events over which men have control are not inevitable. People who talk of the inevitability of war are not only irresponsible but, by
109 M 40
Of course, we must continue along the path of discussion and negotiation, in spite of insults and provocations. That calls for patience, not only on the part of the Government, but of all people, and not the least on the part of Mem- bers of this House. Great as has been the provocation, and irritating and obnoxious as it continues to be day by day in Berlin and other parts of Ger- many, and deplorable as that provocation is, I think I regret most the daily occur- rences in the meetings of the United Nations Organisation. Not only do I dislike the use and abuse of the veto, but I dislike even more the use which is made of the meetings of the United Nations. Instead of providing an oppor- tunity, as they should, for quiet discus- sion and the exercise of goodwill which would lead to understanding and ulti- mately settlement, they are occasions for propaganda when not only each side states its own case, regardless of what may be said by anyone else, but they seem to regard the occasions as giving them an opportunity for abusing one another. We shall not get peace by such methods, and I am wondering whether we had not better realise that we have now arrived at an impasse at these meetings, and see whether there is some other way of breaking through that impasse and restoring an opportunity for peaceful negotiations which, as I say, might lead to settlement.
I listened carefully to the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Berlin is in a vital position. There can be no retreating. The right hon. Gentlemen went on to say that we must maintain our position. What I should have liked to hear from either of them was some suggestion as to how that impasse could be broken, and how we could get over this difficulty. But there was not a word on that aspect. Obviously, nobody wants another Munich, but each side seems to think that time is on its side. Why they should think so I do not know. I do not know whether time is on the side of either of them. I should have thought that it favoured neither. Of this I am sure, that if we
609
9 DECEMBER 1948
Foreign Affairs ald break through this impasse which has arisen over Berlin, it would not be long before I could visualise a settlement with regard to Germany, Austria, Italy and her colonies, and possibly a settle- ment of all the major questions that at present disturb the peace of the world.
Is there not some method which could be used to obtain not a temporary or transient agreement, but a permanent settlement for which a bewildered, anxious and unhappy world is longing? I need not point out what a difference that would make. The imagination just boggles at the effort to assess the effect upon economic and material welfare and benefits which would immediately accrue to the peoples of all countries; and the effect of the relief which people would feel consequent upon the removal of the war cloud is certainly beyond estimate.
That does not mean that we should in the meantime relax our measures for defence. Especially should we play our full part in the common defence against aggression. That is why we welcome the Atlantic Pact, and I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say what steps had been taken to make it effective as soon as pos- sible. I should like to ask whether it would be possible to extend the ambit of that Pact along such lines as has already been suggested by Lord Cecil in that little memorandum of his, An Emergency Policy." The more effective and the wider the scope of such pacts and agreements the better with one condition, that they are defensive, non-aggressive and designed to work within the broad framework of the United Nations and to further its main object-the maintenance of world peace. That is all I want to say upon the general situation.
I now come to one question on which, to my mind, the action and the policy of the Government have been far from good. I refer to the subject last men- tioned by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington-Palestine. I am convinced that had we taken a different course from that which we have recently pursued, we should have gone a long way to bring about a peaceful solution, and not only should we have avoided a great deal of bitterness but also a great deal of deplorable and un- necessary bloodshed. The Foreign Secre- tary made no reference whatsoever to this in his speech. The right hon.
109 M 41
610
Foreign Affairs
Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington suggested that he rather avoided it because of the vote that was taking place in Paris today. However, surely this House is entitled to know from the Foreign Secretary what is the attitude he is adopting in Paris and what instructions he has left behind to those who have to accept his views and accept his directions? It would have been right and proper, as we did expect to hear from the Foreign Secretary what he is doing in Paris and why he is doing it.
What is the position in Palestine? A great number of events have occurred since the Resolution of the United Nations Assembly on 29th November, 1947-only just a year ago. That fore- shadowed, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, not only a Jewish State, which we were accepting as part of the United Nations, but also The the setting up of an Arab State. Arab State has not materialised, but on 15th May this year the Jewish State of Israel was proclaimed, and the late lamented Count Bernadotte was able to describe it in his report in these words: "A living, solidly entrenched and vigorous reality, with a Provisional Government exer- cising, without restrictions on its authority or power, all the attributes of full sovereignty." That was the report that he made to the United Nations. Since the State was pro- claimed it has been recognised by no fewer that 19 States, including the United States of America, Russia and South Africa. It has all the attributes of a Government-
Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge Univer- sity): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? If he says "all the attributes of a Government," and that it has been recognised by 19 States, he ought to say whether they have recog- nised it de facto or de jure.
Mr. Davies: In some case de jure, in some cases de facto, and, I under- stand, in some cases both. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to interrupt me to ask whether that Government has all the attributes of a Government. They have all the attributes, as I say, of a Government--a legislature, a responsible executive, and a full and well-qualified judiciary. There is no doubt it has also a people. It has also a territory, and that territory, as Mr. Jessup said in Paris on behalf of the United States of America,