CO537-3702 — Page 102

683

Foreign Affairs

HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. DRIBERG.] It was the passage in which the editor advanced the proposition that there is not in fact any true ideological conflict, or clash of opposing principles, between the two halves of the world which are now in conflict. He said that is really only a clash of great Powers using ideologies to subserve their national interests, and that in such a clash rights and wrongs are mixed and distributed on both sides, and that therefore-and this was the point already quoted-there was no issue which should not, and could not, be settled by means other than the threat of war. I agree with that analysis

in the main.

It seems to me that just as there is no true ideological conflict-and this is where I part completely from my hon. Friends who talk about crusades and holy wars against the atheistic barbarism of the East that seems to me complete demagogic nonsense-just as there is no true ideological clash, so I believe that the philosophical differences may be less than they might at first sight appear to be. I believe that the Marxists are in error in their own interpretation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism. I think we should suspend judgment on this, and wait until this economic healing process of which I have spoken has gone far enough to enable our philosophers and their philosophers to sit down at a round table together. It does not seem to me that the basic principle of dialectical materialism, which I suppose is simply that every thing is a relative unity of interpenetrating but ineradicable opposites, has any essential relation to atheism.

I add at once that, in the practice of Communism as it is at present, I loathe much that occurs in countries in which that philosophy is dominant. I detest any kind of cruelty to any individual human being-though, Heaven knows, unfortunately that is not limited to East of the Iron Curtain. I venerate particu- larly our Parliamentary system and I believe that we are showing, particularly in this Parliament, that it is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to enable us to carry out great social and economic changes. I have never been able to under- stand, however, why it should therefore be assumed that all nations should reach the same level of historical development

109 N 30

Foreign Affairs

684

at the same time; or why, for instance, the Government of a country such as Jugoslavia, with its background of wide- spread illiteracy and poverty, pre-war police dictatorship, wartime occupation and civil war, and constant acquaintance- ship with violence gencrally, why such a Government should be expected to behave like life members of the Reform Club. That, it seems to me, the nadir of starry- eyed idealism, and I am always surprised to find the Foreign Secretary stooping to it.

Moreover, from him to whom much is given, much shall be required. We pride ourselves on our Parliamentary democ- racy, on the political steadiness and literacy of our people. It has taken us many centuries to reach this level, and we should be more patient, more tolerant, and more understanding of historical necessity than those who have not reached it. On all these issues, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the late Archbishop William Temple, whose views have been paraphrased recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) and others in an interesting correspondence in "The

Times."

Our economic solution is also relevant here, because severity in administration is almost always the product of a sense of insecurity. I believe that it is of tremendous importance to realise that. One has only to look back on our own experience in the last war when, under Regulation 18B, and in other respects also, at the threat to our national security we immediately adopted the principle which Governments, like individuals, always say they will never adopt that the end justifies the means. Similarly, if these tensions could be eased, I think we should see a steady but perhaps slow pro- cess of liberalisation in these countries.

My last point is this. We have just had--and I am a little surprised that no reference has been made to it, and I hope my hon. Friend will make refer- ence to it-what may be called the first draft of an ideology for the world. Two days ago, after 24 years' work, there was produced the draft of what is called a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the majority of the nations assented. There were a certain number of abstentions, and the Soviet bloc abstained. I am glad they did not vote

9 DECEMBER 1948

Foreign Affairs

against, and I am sorry they abstained. Of course, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mean the im- mediate universal exercise of human rights, but this document may well be a test by which we can all judge ourselves, remembering the parable of the Mote and the Beam. I fear that we may all find many ways in which we fall short of these ideals, not least on the question of our relationships with Colonial and coloured peoples.

Perhaps one of the most important developments of this century has been the rapid rise of national and international self-consciousness and race-consciousness among these peoples. The Colonial Office is far ahead of some other Govern- ments in this direction, and I wish that the Foreign Secretary would talk to the French and the Dutch about their in- transigence in South-East Asia. This document will, as I say, provide a test and a guide, and I hope that, in the light of it, the Foreign Ministers of all the world will once more try to get their heads together, to drop doctrinaire-

Mr. Bartlett: On a point of Order. May I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. The senior Burgess for Cam- bridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who grumbled some little time ago because some Members of the Front Bench were mumbling, keeps up a running commen- tary the whole time, while some of us want to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. May we ask for your protection?

Mr. Speaker: I always regret running commentaries; they do not add to the dignity of the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Driberg: I am very glad to have, so to speak, got under the skin of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University. I hope that some of the facts will also be driven into his brain.

I was winding-up by saying that I hope that merely doctrinaire hostility will be abandoned by all the great Powers, and that we, in particular, will give that lead which has so often been asked for from many quarters, and concentrate on bring; ing about an instant and prolonged detente in which, at last peace may begin to grow. If not, in a few years' time, I am afraid that we shall come to the end of the Dunciad:

"Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain

fall,

And universal darkness buries all."

109 N 31

Foreign Affairs

686

I should hate to nominate any living statesman for the title of great Anarch. 9.31 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined Eng- lish Universities): "The Times," in a leading article today, laments the fact that there is less real discussion of foreign policy than for many years past. I want to echo that statement, and to sympathise with the Foreign Secretary on the quite impossible task that is put upon him in trying to make a speech on the whole world in one afternoon. I have been in this House for 15 years. I have listened to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) trying to do it. During the war, I listened to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) doing it. It is quite impossible. What is much worse, it makes the suc- ceeding Debate impossible. As a result, tomorrow I believe, we are going to have three speeches from the Front Benches-

Mr. Stokes: Shame.

Mr. Lindsay-two speeches from the Government Front Bench and one from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden): I hope the hon. Member will register that there is only one speech from this Front Bench.

Mr. Lindsay: I am saying there are three speeches from the two Front Benches. Apparently, that is still

accurate.

Mr. Stokes: I still say shame. Mr. Lindsay: So do I. This is going to be on a short day, a Friday. It is ber of hon. Members wish to speak. It within my knowledge that a large num-

is also my conviction that the Lord Presi- dent of the Council had absolutely no knowledge of the feeling in the House when he refused to have an extra hour this evening because he wanted what he called a tidy day." My gracious, we have only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), not to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), to realise that the world is in the most con- fused and untidy state in which it has ever been, and this House has had no opportunity of discussing foreign policy in a general way for a very long time.