663
Foreign Affairs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Maclean: No, Sir, I will not give way.
We know all too much of the purely negative aspect of the Govern- ment's policy in the East. We know of the chaos which followed our withdrawal from Palestine, India and Burma. We know the disastrous delay in restoring order in Malaya. We know of the failure to protect our interests in China. We know of their refusal to play a proper part in Japan and Korea. What I would ask the Minister who may answer the Debate is to give us some indication of what positive action the Government pro- pose to take to stem the Communist tide in the East.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne): I will not endeavour to follow the hon. Gentleman in the speech which he has just delivered and which he no doubt found so much more inspiring than the Foreign Secretary's. Perhaps I might express the hope that the Chair might think that the honours are now easy and might now call two hon. Members from this side of the House.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Maclean) did not answer the question which was put to him, why he thought that Chiang Kai-shek was losing, if he has not already lost, most of China. I will not invite him to answer the question now, but I invite him to study the ques- tion quietly for himself. If he finds the results of his inquiry a little shocking, to him at least, the study might be a political education which would do him no harm.
I intervene in the Debate only because I want to say a word or two about Palestine. I have made a number of speeches in the House on this subject and I think it has been fairly clear that I have been extremely critical of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Palestine during the past three years. I do not want to say another word about that now. We can leave all that part of the matter to the historians. It is time that we addressed ourselves, and that the Government addressed themselves, to the realities of the situation. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I should par- ticularly like to refer to one part of his speech.
109 N 20
Foreign Affairs
654 Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear. It was very good.
Mr. Silverman : Of course, I welcomed his suggestion that the Government should recognise the State of Israel but I do not know why, in all the circumstances, the Government should take two bites at the cherry. I do not see why there should be de facto recognition to be followed some day or other by de jure recognition. There is no reason why the recognition should not be outright de jure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind, but the reasons which he gave in order to persuade the Government to accord any recognition at all seem to be thoroughly unrealistic. He put forward his plea for recognition on the basis that this country could now, by reason of the confidence it enjoys on both sides, bring them together and help them to reach an agreement. I wish that were true.
It is no pleasure for a citizen of this country to have to say--but if we are to face the realities then let it be realities that we face-that the realities are, whether with justification or without it, that we enjoy at this moment no con- fidence whatever either in Israel or in any of the other countries. I am sorry that it should be so, but I am afraid that it is sò. Any policy founded on the assumption of the contrary will only fail. That does not invalidate the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know why it is that statesmen in this House always put themselves in the posi- tion that Disraeli once charged Mr. Gladstone with being in, when he said -I am not quoting the actual words- "I do not mind the right hon. Gentleman having the ace up his sleeve but I do not see why he should claim that it was the Almighty who put it there."
56
This country has in the Near East legitimate interests of which it has no reason to be ashamed and which it is entitled to protect. Why in the world should not we say so? Why should we not put our cards on the table and say, These are our interests in this part of the world and 55
-a perfectly proper thing to say “we are entitled to protect them, we are going to protect them, and this is the kind of protection that we seek "? Why should not we do that at the United Nations? Why not in the House itself and why not with the Arab States and the State of Israel? We should do much
Foreign Affairs 9 DECEMBER 1948 665 beiter by being absolutely candid when our interests are legitimate than by pre- tending that we have only altruistic motives and no material interests of our own to serve. Nobody believes it at all.
Mr. Eden: Surely, even on that basis, on the merely materialistic basis, which I agree exists, our greatest interest is that there should be peace between these two parties?
Mr. Silverman : Of course. I thought I had already indicated that I was entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentle- man about recognition and aiding, if we can aid, and ceasing to impede direct negotiations between these parties. I see no reason why there should not be com- plete agreement between them. I am afraid it is true, although in saying this I am departing from my intention not to go into the past, that the lukewarm sup- port and I am not sure that that is not rather extravagant praise-which the Government gave to the United Nations solution in November last year prevented an agreement which, at that time, could have been reached without bloodshed, without disorder, and without fighting of any kind.
I think it is so, and if my interests, my sympathies in these matters were more enlisted on the Arab side than they are on the other--and everybody knows they are enlisted on the other-I should feel that I was more entitled to complain of His Majesty's Government than if I were on the other side. They have been completely misled, and have been told for three years that nothing will be allowed to happen there to which they do not freely agree. As they began by being in possession of all they wanted, that was an open invitation to them never to agree to anything. The result of never agree- ing to anything when one is hopelessly in the wrong, is, in the end, to lose every- thing. I am not saying that they have lost everything or anything. I think it could be to the equal advantage of Israel, the Arab countries, the peace of the world, and of this country if there were immediate recognition of Israel, if that were accepted as a fact, and it is a fact, and if we then proceeded from that to define and deal with what are our own interests in the matter and in this part of the world.
109 N 21
Foreign Affairs
666
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Maclean) made one reference to Palestine in which he talked about a fifth column. I think that what he intended to convey was that the State of Israel was neces- sarily already enlisted on the wrong side in a world conflict between West and East. I think that in some quarters-I do not know whether in Government quarters or not-there is a feeling to that effect, a feeling that whether they can get anything out of the Arabs or not, whether they can win any sympathy or support, and whether such support would be of any material value or not, they are bound to rely upon them, because they have already written off the State of Israel. I am sure that is a profound mistake.
There is no doubt, of course, that the Soviet bloc has consistently supported them in this matter over the whole of the past two years. It is equally a fact that they are the only States in the world to have done so. It would be uncandid and disingenuous not to admit at once that these historical facts must lay upon the new State a certain obligation of gratitude, and that it would be very wrong if it were not so.
On the other hand, their whole history, background, psychological make-up and ideals are wholly non-totalitarian. Some people say: "Oh, but look at the great influx from
into Eastern Europe Palestine in recent years and months." Indeed, one of the great achievements of this young State is that in five months, when it was fighting with its back to the sea and when everybody expected it to be swept into the sea, it introduced into its territory between 80,000 and 90,000 refugees from Europe; an unparalleled achievement in circumstances of this kind. While it is true that a great many, by no means all, come from Eastern Europe, those who come are those who want to come not those who want to stay. Those who can easily be absorbed into the social economies and the new democracies of Eastern Europe do not want to leave; they stay where they are. I am bound to say-and I think we all ought to admit it if we are frank and candid with one another-that for the first time in the history of these parts of the world they can stay in those countries with perfect security.