675
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Foreign Affairs [MR. FLETCHER.] China is not only to China itself but its spread throughout the Far East, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and so on: it has completely unbalanced the situa- tion in the Pacific and in the Far East, We cannot, therefore, afford this policy of non-intervention. We have to do some- thing a little more positive. If my sugges- tion does not find favour, let us at least hear something from the Government that they propose to do except relying on the Treaty of Non-intervention of December, 1945.
Let me turn for one moment to Japan. It is only three years ago since I made a speech in this House about the dangers that might arise. Since then I have noticed that an increasing number of hon. Members, those who have been there and those who study it, are coming round to the view I ventured to express: that was, the great source of danger that might be created there-a kind of Fran- kenstein's monster. Something extremely dangerous has been done in the Far East, largely by America because we have not had much say there. We are getting a little more say now, but not as much as we might. They have fastened all the trappings, the pattern and the machine of democracy on to a country which does not understand it and will not understand it for several decades. We have told them that their Emperor is not what they thought he was; we have shown them, through elections, what a voting machine is; but to think that we have really altered their mental outlook is extraordinarily optimistic, almost fool- ishly so. It is very unlikely that that will stand the test which is likely to
come.
What is likely to be the situation in Japan in a few years' time? Under American guidance and American aid that country, which was less touched by war than almost any of the other great countries-only two bombs were dropped on it, and in a limited area-that country will be modernised, equipped and have all the advantages of several years of American technological assistance; it will be equipped as a Western Power for production but with the lowest wage cost that inevitably occurs in an Eastern Power.
Two years ago the right hon. Gentle- man the Chancellor of the Exchequer
109 N 26
Foreign Affairs
replied to a speech I made on this sub- ject when I was putting forward the thesis that, even if we raised to the maximum extent the standard of living of the Japanese, it could never reach that of the inhabitants of Western Europe, be- cause these are people whose life is based on eating a certain amount of rice and living in flimsy houses because it is earth- quake country. Therefore, if we imposed upon them all the variegated delights of a Strachey diet, or the magnificent "pre- fab" houses that are being built here by the Minister of Health, they would not appreciate any of these things. They are not in their way of living, and there is no reason why we should impose our way of living upon them. Consequently, there will be exactly the same fear which the Foreign Secretary had about the Ruhr. He was worried that the standard of living in the Ruhr was so low and that that would cause a disequilibrium in the economy of Europe. I entirely agree with him, but how much greater will be the disequilibrium in Japan, where the standard of living can never possibly be raised to within measurable distance of a European standard of living?
Within a few years, therefore, we shall face an economy which will have the ad- vantages of modern Western technology from America and of low cost of labour, even when labour is on the best possible basis, of which I am all in favour, in the Far East. In other words, we shall have created the most scientific and up-to-date dumping machine that it will be possible to find. That will constitute a great danger. And what will happen then? The machine of democracy which we have imposed upon Japan will start to work and the Japanese will have a beau- tiful and democratic election; they will turn round and say, Thank you very
66
much. We have now voted 97 to three that you get out."
We have
What will be our reply? only two answers. Either we stay, in which case they say, "This democracy is a mockery and has never meant anything at all. It is just a game you have taught us and now you are altering the rules." If that happens we shall drive them back to their emperor-worship and all their old beliefs; or else we get out. If we get out we have created, without control in the Far East, this vast and powerful country which has proved already that in
Foreign Affairs
9 DECEMBER 1948
40 or 50 years it could rise from prac- tically nothing to be a very great Power of the world, capable of producing every sort of dangerous weapon and munition, and capable of wrecking every market in the world to which we have to export.
What are we doing about it? Is there to be non-intervention here, too? Slowly and painfully we are getting a footing in Japan, but not more than that. We have to make a very much greater effort, an effort that has to be made more in Wash- ington than it has in Japan. This real danger which I have tried to draw is beginning to dawn upon the United States. Until the dual dangers of a highly- geared and speeded-up economy, on top of which rather a gimcrack democracy has been fastened, are understood, and until some means have been taken to counter them, there can be no-peace in anybody's mind about their own coun- try. Already Lancashire and Yorkshire are extremely perturbed about the effect upon the cotton and woollen industries. It is equally true of the potteries. These are only the first symptoms of what is to come.
I believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise this danger. They will be doing the greatest service to this country if their realisation is canalised into bringing a great deal more pressure to bear on their Government which, I realise, has many other tasks. They must take this task in hand and do so very soon. There is no reason at all either for devoting only four or five min- utes to the Far East, or for saying that Government policy is going to be one of non-intervention, or repeating the error made in Malaya and putting off until it is again a case of too little and too late.
To summarise what I have urged: first, there is the necessity of an absolutely clear statement about Hong Kong and the defences of Hong Kong. I am cer- tain that on that rock we can build. Then there is the restoration of the treaty ports. Thirdly, there is examination of how far we are going in Japan and how far we are to have an influence on the future of Japan. These are the three cardinal points which must be discussed about the Far East.
In regard to China, let us not run the risk of guessing whether the forces in the
109 N 27
678
Foreign Affairs North are more or less Communist, but let us set to with all the means still left to us and that we can create by propa- ganda and other means, to make quite certain that the mass of people in North and South China have some alternative to Communism; at present it is the only thing offered to them while their other Government is breaking up. One trouble is that the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office have so much to look after that they cannot devote enough time to what is likely to be brought against them in the Far East and elsewhere. But I have tried to make the urgency of these things and the importance of these things on the short and long terms clear to them, and I hope they will treat it with a little more gift of time, thought and policy than we have had up to date.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Driberg (Maldon): Although I do not always, or usually, agree with him, one is bound to admit that the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) is one of the relatively few hon. Members of the House who have consistently shown their interest in the Far East, a subject which the House has in general neg- lected. Unfortunately, I cannot join with him in discussing that subject tonight, because I want to make one or two general observations; I have been busy cutting out the most uninteresting parts of the inordinately long speech I had prepared, in the hope of not making the longest back-bench speech from this side of the House.
The main point I want to make is extremely trite but, I believe, profoundly true. It is simply that all over the world political prejudice is delaying economic recovery and the establishment of peace. Our "commitments," that is, largely, our part in the cold war, lead to cuts and delays in essential services and to un- happy Debates like the recent ones on conscription. The reckless. doctrinaire removal of price controls in America, which, we may possibly hope, may now be reversed, seriously impaired the use- fulness of the first American Loan. In Russia, more devastated by war than, perhaps, any other European country, sus- picion and fear of the outside world must be delaying their essential reconstruction also.
Nowhere is this deadlock more tragi- cally illustrated than in the once glorious
Page 100Page 101