623
Foreign Affairs
[Mr. Zilliacus.]
44
HOUSE OF COMMONS
66
one and a half years ago, or as in The Times," nearly three years ago in March, 1946. The Osservatore Romano," in a series of four remarkable articles by its editor-in-chief, the veteran Count Giuseppe della Torre, likened the present situation to the position after the French Revolution. He said that just as then there was a counter-revolutionary coali- tion led by Britain against revolutionary France, so, today, there is a counter- revolutionary coalition led by the U.S.A. against revolutionary Russia and Eastern Europe. He concluded by stating that in such a situation right and wrong were mixed and distributed on both sides and there was no issue that could not and should not be settled by compromise and negotiation; that you cannot destroy an idea, even the idea of Communism, by force, and that another war would destroy most of what is left of civilisa- tion, whereas with peace everything could be regained.
"The Times" of 6th March, 1946, commenting on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at Fulton, said that it was an assumption of despair to take the view that it was impossible to find common ground between Communism and Western democracy. There were many forms of government intermediate between Western democracy and Com- munism, and some of them might be better suited to the actual conditions of large parts of the world, including Eastern Europe and the Middle East, than our Western Parliamentary system. Communism and Western democracy had much to learn from each other. It went on to say:
The ideological warfare between Western democracy and Communism cannot result in an out-and-out victory for either side. The issue will be determined neither by clashes of eloquence nor by clashes of arms, but by the success of the great nations in dealing with the problems of social organisation in the broadest sense which the war has left behind it."
That is, I think, a common-sense intel- lectual foundation for a policy capable of winning the peace. The moral founda- tion is, I think, to be found in the advice of the late President Roosevelt. One of the last things which he said was:
EL
"After the war the only thing that we need to fear is fear."
There is nothing to be afraid of, pro- vided we are ready to accept the need
109 M 48
Foreign Affairs
624
for great and rapid social change. must carry out the changes here by cur own method, and our country can help to ease the transition for the rest of the world if only we are not afraid; if we make a clear and stable choice, if we make up our minds and stick to our decision. We must deliberately and finally reject the old fatal risks of coming down on the side of capitalist restoration and anti-Communist
in Europe and Asia, for recent history shows that taking such risks does not end in giving us democracy and peace, but on the contrary lands us in Fascism and war.
intervention
We must accept the risks, which we pledged ourselves at the General Election to take, of standing with the workers, for Socialism and on the Charter in our relations with Western Europe and the Socialist quarter of humanity. What that means is that, first of all, we should refuse any United States help in our armaments, because to take such help means abandoning national independence. We should not accept any military obliga- tion inconsistent with the fundamental obligation of the Charter to settle our differences with the Soviet Union by peaceful means and never to resort to force or the threat of force as a means of settlement. We should not allow any United States' forces or bases in this country, or in any British territory in Europe or Asia until we are satisfied that United States' foreign policy also accepts this fundamental principle. We should not accept the obligations of the Brussels military treaty and the Atlantic Pact unless and until they are revised so as to bring them into conformity with this fundamental principle. We should not re- arm more than we can afford out of our own economic resources, because in the present situation economic strength is what we need to keep up our end in the world, and not military strength. If any- one asks how we can take the risk, my reply is that little Sweden, with six million people living cheek by jowl with the Soviet Union, and Switzerland can take that risk, and if they can take that risk, and if Sweden and Switzerland are taking that risk, then we, too, can take it.
But, unlike these tiny countries, we can at the same time have a positive policy which will change the face of world politics. In Western Europe, our co- operation is indispensible, and therefore