CO537-3702 — Page 58

(

799

Foreign Affairs

have, of course, no intention of perman- ently ostracising the Jews. We look for- ward to the establishment of friendly relations with them. Mr. Marriott, His Majesty's Consul-General at Haifa, has been back here for consultations, and the question of establishing better means of contact with the Jewish authorities, with- out prejudice to the question of recogni- tion, is being closely studied by the Gov- crnment. We hope to make a further statement very soon. However, we can- not decide on the question of recognition before we consider the results of the de- liberations of the current Assembly, or without taking into account the obser- vance or non-observance of the Security Council truce. I must make it clear that the consideration we are giving to the establishment of these closer contacts does not mean that we are prepared to act as mediators in any way in any fur- ther negotiations for a settlement. Before recognition can be granted, we must have some assurance as to what the frontiers of Israel are to be. Surely, we must have some assurance about the obser- vance of the truce, and some assurance about any further claims that might be made by the Jewish authorities against their neighbour States. Surely, that attitude is reasonable? For these reasons, I am not able, at this time, to state that we are prepared to recognise the State of Israel.

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. MAYHEW.] Government's attitude, or even a survey of the problem, but we have been attacked on three main points. It has been stated by several speakers that, in some way, we are holding up successful direct negotiations between the two parties. Secondly, it has been stated that we have widened the gap and parted company with the United States on this subject. Thirdly, it has been stated that we must recognise the State of Israel. On the first of these points, to say that we are holding up or interfering with direct negotiations between the parties is a complete mis-statement of our posi tion. We have always been anxious and tried our best to promote free negotia- tions between the parties, but they must be free negotiations, freely entered into. We shall be no party to any move to compel the weaker side to sit down under the stronger; rather than do that, we shall continue our efforts to persuade the United Nations organisation to accept the responsibility of implementing its own recommendations for a settlement. Nor is the second accusation levelled against have the Government just-that we parted company on this issue with the United States of America. There have, of course, been wide differences between the two countries in the past. I am bound to say that we have not always found our American friends wholly con- sistent on this issue. However, the differences are not so wide today as they were ; we have drawn closer together with the United States on the substance of this problem.

A short while ago my right hon. Friend announced to this House our support of the Bernadotte proposals. The House will be aware that these proposals were also endorsed by Mr. Marshall in a public statement. At that time, there was little or no criticism in this House of the Ber- nadotte proposals. That was, of course, not only a narrowing of the gap, but a substantial basis of agreement with the United States. Since then, in regard to the Resolution and the Amendments to the Resolution of the United Nations, we have, in fact, on all points of substance, found ourselves voting with the United States of America.

On the third point raised by many speakers the question of recognition of the State of Israel-the Government

110 B Z

I am afraid I have left myself no time to deal with many of the other points raised in the Debate. I would assure hon. Members that we will very care- fully study the speeches made, and that I shall be very glad to write to them to explain the views of my right hon. Friend on the many points they have raised.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon): Before my hon. Friend sits down, could he just say whether he can do anything to save the lives of those men in Greece during the coming weeks, following his own pre- cedent of last May?

Mr. Mayhew: It has been stated quite recently that, in relation to the trials of foreign nationals in foreign countries, we can only intervene where either British interests or British treaty rights are in- volved.

801

West Indies (Settlement) 10 DECEMBER 1948 West Indies (Settlement)

Mr. Driberg: Then why was my hon. Friend able to intervene in Greece last May on behalf of Greek Nationals? Will he answer me that?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give me notice of the particular

case he has in mind.

Mr. Driberg: Surely, my hon. Friend knows what I am referring to!

3.59 p.m.

WEST INDIES (SETTLEMENT)

Mr. Skinnard (Harrow, East): I wish to draw the attention of the House for a short time to a document of very great importance and far-reaching consequence. Three million people are directly involved, but-

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

CE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."- --{Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Mr. Skinnard: The document is not only of great importance to the 3 million British subjects directly involved, but to the Commonwealth and Empire as a whole. Indeed, since the successful application of the proposals made in this document would result in the develop- ment of hitherto untapped and, indeed, ungauged resources in two neglected terri- tories, it is of concern to the world at large, and it has already received critical notice in the newspapers and among poli- ticians in the neighbouring countries of South and Central America. I refer to the report of the British Guiana and British Honduras Settlement Commission set up in February, 1947.

This Report was not published until 3rd November of this year, although, as I shall hope to show, some knowledge of what it contained had already leaked out in some circles prior to its official publica- tion. It is appropriate that this whole matter should be referred to at the close of this two days' Debate on foreign affairs, because Guatemala has already preferred a claim to the larger part of British Honduras, and the future of the three remaining European Colonies on the South American mainland has been can- vassed by the Governments of the various South American countries at a recent con- ference.

110 B 3

802

The disparity between the growth of world population and the available present resources for the maintenance of that population is so marked that it must be accepted as a principle that if any Power

potential resources of any country under does not fully develop the

its control it will have its rights to such countries challenged and, indeed, they would be justly challenged. That it was high time that a thorough investigation should be made into the potentialities of British Guiana and British Honduras can be shown by a few simple figures which tell their own story. The figures relate to the British West Indies as a whole.

The total population of the Islands and the two mainland Colonies of British Guiana and British Honduras is about 24 million of which 24 million live on the islands, which have a total area just about equal to that of Wales. The con- ditions in these islands are appalling because of the overcrowding which results. The actual density of population varies from 1,200 per square mile in Barbadoes to just under 300 per square mile in Jamaica and in Trinidad. British Guiana, on the other hand, is a country about the same size as Great Britain, and yet it has a population of only about 376,000 people, or 41 people to every square mile; while British Honduras which is slightly larger than Wales has a population of under 70,000 people, which, of course, is equivalent to about seven It must be people per square mile. remembered that even 300 people to the square mile is really gross over- crowding in the islands because of the fact that the economy is agrarian and also because much of these islands is mountainous and in such regions there is no possibility of farming.

Just before the war, a Royal Commis- sion on the West Indies went out, which reported in 1939. It is commonly known as the Moyne Commission. This Report, which I have studied very carefully, appears to me to be one of the most pessimistic documents ever presented to Parliament. It was careful enough and detailed, but nevertheless it was pessi- mistic, seeing no very certain future for our fellow citizens in the British West Indies. It was, however, a challenge to Britain, as a trustee, and I feel sure, but for the outbreak of war, that this chal- lenge would have been taken up and at