CO537-3702 — Page 45

C

751

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. EDELMAN.] Russia, on fundamental principles we can at least achieve a working agree- ment. The functional method is the way to achieve it.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End): One of the most important and serious features about the contribution made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary was the lack of attention which was paid to his remarks. As hon. Members will remember, the House was half empty, and by the time the right hon. Gentleman finished it was three-quarters empty. In addition, many of those who were listening were not doing so very attentively. "The Times," in its leading article yesterday, foretold that something like this would happen,

for it declared that there seemed to be a lack of interest in any discussion on foreign affairs. That is worthy of some comment before we pass on to the major issues which we are here to discuss.

I do not believe that this inattention is because of a lack of interest in foreign affairs. Every Member of this House is very seriously concerned with inter- national affairs whether in the wider aspects or in the narrower field which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman). The fact that last week 120 Labour Members of Parliament refrained from supporting the Government on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill is an indication, in part, that many of those are concerned by the foreign aspects of that Measure.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich): Rubbish! Mr. Piratin: I said in part." Mr. Stokes: And I repeat, “Rubbish."

Mr. Piratin: If the hon. Member likes rubbish he can go on having it. Secondly, 60 Labour Members of Parliament have signed a request put forward from the Union of Democratic Control for the Government to take some steps for a reconciliation in Greece. That is an indication that those 60 Members are concerned with foreign affairs. I believe there are two reasons why there was this lack of attention yesterday. First, it is pretty obvious that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary did not deal with the issues which people feel are at the bottom of our problems.

110 A 26

Foreign Affairs

752

With regard to the United Nations, e report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech shows that one paragraph was devoted to that subject. It is true that he added that the Under-Secretary of State, in his reply, would deal with ques- tions of this kind if they were raised in the course of the Debate. A great many

things have happened at the United

Nations about which the right hon. Gen- tleman should have told us. There is the

question of disarmament, on which the Foreign Secretary should have expressed his opinion and the reason for the stand he took, without leaving it to the Under- Secretary of State to deal with it by answering questions. In regard to Ger- many, he had very little to say. He con- cerned himself with certain developments which are taking place in Germany, but he carefully avoided some aspects of international affairs which have been referred to in the course of the Debate and which show how much a failure his policy has been.

The question of Palestine has been raised from both sides of the House. Both the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have given their points of view, which are in contrast, about the steps the right hon. Gentleman should take. This matter was also raised by several other hon. Members on this side of the House. In regard to Greece, the right hon. Gentleman cannot be content with the position there. Hon. Members opposite would like him to go further and see to it that our intervention is a successful one; hon. Members on this side of the House want to know whether intervention is worth it at all. It is on these things that the right hon. Gentle- man refrained from speaking. He re- frained from making any reference to the underlying recognition in the country that its economic position was effected by his policy. No reference at all was made to the fact that, because of the foreign policy, we are faced with a squeeze," to use a card term, whether we are to have the social services which the people expect and which the Government in

66

their legislation have predicted, or whether the Government are going to state, "We cannot afford them because our money has to go into other directions." The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) raised, at a private meeting of the Labour Party recently, the

753

754

10 DECEMBER 1948 Foreign Affairs

Union, the United States and ourselves. No doubt his mind went back to the date when that letter was written.

Foreign Affairs matter of the rising cost of living, and it is easy to see that rising cost of living is partly the outcome of the foreign policy of the right hon. Gentleman. These matters combined constitute the first reason why there appears to be a lack of interest in the foreign policy of the Foreign Secretary.

The second reason is that, consciously or unconsciously, there is a realisation in this House that we no longer decide the foreign policy of our country. It was bad enough years ago when many people suspected that it was not the House but the Foreign Office which decided foreign policy. Even today the Foreign Office tries to pull wool over the eyes of innocent Members of Parliament by attempting to show that it, and not the State Department in Washington, shapes the foreign policy of this country. The current example of what is going on has been the difference of opinion between our representatives and the representa- tives of the United States with regard to dismantling in Germany. We are on common ground with France. A com- mittee has been set up, but everyone knows that it is American and it will come to a conclusion satisfactory to America, which we shall have to accept. Therefore, our policy of dismantling and the policy agreed to will have to go by the board. I have made those remarks because I am seriously concerned at the way in which hon. Members walked out yesterday, since it showed a certain attitude on foreign affairs.

I want to deal with Germany and her problems, not for themselves alone, but because they are vital in many other respects. They reveal why the Three- Power Agreement was reached, to which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) referred in the latter part of his speech today. This Agreement repre- sented an understood relationship at the close of, and immediately after the war. The right hon. Member for Woodford today quoted from a letter of his to Stalin dated 29th April, 1945, when he was Prime Minister. In that letter he voiced his sentiments, and there was applause when he said that it was far better to quote what he said at the time than to make remarks now about what he then thought or felt. That is true. He then referred to his desire for the future co-operation of the three major Governments in the world, the Soviet

110 A 27

some

Yet many things have changed since then. It was only 11 months after 29th April, 1945, that he made his speech at Fulton. The House cannot believe, and the public cannot believe, that the world has changed so irrevocably in those 11 months that he had to make at Fulton the speech which laid the basis for the present part we are playing. The Labour Party likewise, in its post-war Election campaign, declared for co-opera- tion between the three Powers. In its programme it said:

We must consolidate in peace the great wartime association of the British Common- wealth with the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R."

Today we have not got that three-Power co-operation. On the contrary, we have a growing hostility between two sides. It is claimed by many people that it is the fault of Russia. Everyone in his senses must accept that it is a two-way process. Again, if we are in our senses, we must accept that perhaps it is cause and effect. At least, if we are in our senses we ought to look carefully, step by step, at everything that has happened. With great respect-I want to cause no hostility--I ask all hon. Members who can hear, or will read what I am say- ing, to read over some of the things that have been said in the last few years. If we have reached a state of hostility in the world today, and if we claim that the fault lies to a large extent at the door of Russia, at least let us ask ourselves where we have gone wrong from time to time, and then maybe we can prevent the present difficult position becoming further exacerbated.

The case of Germany is one for which no one can blame Russia. No one can blame Russia for our administration in the Western zone of Germany. Whatever has happened or is happening there is our concern. We took those steps and we knew what we were doing. First let me establish what is the position. On 29th July, 1946, the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) asked the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, then the Minister of State, this Question:

"Will my right hon. Friend give an assur- ance that no decision will be taken which will prejudice the possibility of carrying out a Socialist policy in the British zone of Ger- many?"

Page 45Page 46