CO537-3702 — Page 81

603

Foreign Affairs

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is true.

Mr. Levy: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain briefly exactly how, in his opinion, it would be possible for a number of laisser faire economists to plan this matter conjointly and to inte- grate themselves?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman will explain how a Socialist economy has ever planned at all, then I will tell him. After what we have been living through in the last three years surely we shall never be told again that a Socialist believes in a planned economy.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that the success of any union of Western Europe depends upon its capacity to organise its economic life according to a common economic plan. Does he think that we can ever see such

an

economic plan without economic ownership and economic control?

Mr. Eden: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the measure of co-operation, to take only one example, that has gone on within this Empire of ours, from countries containing entirely different political parties-I would ask the hon. Member for Eton and Slough not to wave his hands about like that-Interruption.} I thought he meant something. I did not know.

Mr. Levy: I am sorry. I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again. He speaks of this matter as simply a question of party, in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman seems to regard party, as a kind of current political game without significance. The real essential difference is whether we are discussing planning or not. Can we plan Europe, when the countries who ought to plan together refuse to plan? Mr. Eden: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman two things. First of all, I would point out what has been achieved on more than one occasion in the Empire, and how we believe that carries us a stage further, despite the different views on planning. What I want the hon. Gentleman and the House to face is that, if one really thinks that one can only get it on the basis of Socialism, one is not going to get Western Union at all.

109 M 38

Foreign Affairs

604

It is no use going to the other countries and saying, We will make Western Union with you if you are all Socialists." The next thing is that, at the next General Election, the Socialists are out, and where then are these countries? They will have to start all over again.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dalton): Perhaps I also might be allowed to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I hope, if Mr. Speaker so wills, that I may have a chance of saying something tomorrow.

But may

I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any further quotations are to be discovered from my remarks because this is an accurate, but highly selective quotation. Mr. Eden: Here is another one which says:

In my opinion, speaking also for my colleagues on the Executive, we are quite confident that the success of any scheme for a United States of Europe, however defined, for the peoples composing the aggregate popula~ tion of Western Europe, is going to depend upon the success of those democratic Socialist parties in each of those countries taken separately, and in all those countries taken together.'

It seems to me to amount to much the same as the previous quotation. If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I hope he will tell me. I beg the House to face the fact that if we are going to get Western Union in this generation--united Western Union in this generation-we shall not get it on the basis of one particular party, or one particular dogma.

I now turn to Palestine. I think we are all very greatly troubled about the position in Palestine, the latent dangers of which are only too apparent to every- body. There are one or two preliminary considerations which ought to be borne in mind. Last week, His Majesty's Government accepted the United Nations' resolution for partition. That commits us, as I see it, to the establishment of a State of Israel which is to be one of the bases of negotiation. Nobody can doubt that it is very dangerous indeed to allow the present situation to continue. There is any amount of inflammatory tinder about. If anybody wants an example of how dangerous the situation is, we have it in the report on the tape machine last night made by the British U.N.O. representative of alleged raids by Jews into Transjordan.

605

Foreign Affairs 9 DECEMBER 1948 We have treaty obligations with Trans- jordan, and those obligations must be fulfilled. There is also much suffering among the populations, notably among the Arab population, many of whom have been driven from their homes. I feel that every assistance should be given to these unhappy people, whether through the United Nations or in any other way.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary, or whoever speaks for him, can tell us how far the British offer of £1 million made for the relief of Pales- tinian Arabs has been supported by other countries, and what is the present posi- tion about that relief. While there are all these causes for concern, I believe there is also some indication on both sides of an underlying desire for a settlement. This, I think, applies particularly to those who have been nearest to hostilities, and who, geographically, are closest to each other.

It often happens that there is a psycho- logical moment after prolonged hostilities when the atmosphere is propitious for a It may be that this par- peace effort. ticular peace effort ought, and could, best be carried through by the two parties themselves. In this connection, I noticed that at a conference at Jericho last week, representatives of the Palestine Arabs unanimously called for the incorporation of Arab Palestine within Transjordan. It appears now that King Abdullah has accepted this proposal. Even so, I have no doubt that our good offices can still be of great value and importance.

It is not only the Middle Eastern re- actions to this problem which trouble me, but also the potential threat to the cordiality of Anglo-American relations upon which so much else depends. Our purpose in this unhappy business must be to do all we can to bring about a settlement without further delay. This seems to me to mean that we have to accept certain facts. If our influence is to be made available to both parties, then we must have some form of contact with those parties. To say this does not mean that we should express particular approval or disapproval of either of the parties or of both, or of all they have done or are doing. It is just a matter of practical politics.

If we think we can help to build a bridge, as I am sure we can, then it is desirable, in my view, that we should be

109 M 39

Foreign Affairs

606

at both ends of the bridge. For this pur- pose, therefore-and I firmly believe this to be as much in the interests of the Arabs as of anybody else--I would say that we ought now to consider establish- ing a British political representative at Tel Aviv on a de facto basis. Any such conditional recognition thus given would, of course, depend on an undertaking in no circumstances to resume operations, and to enter immediately into direct negotiations for a settlement. Any aggres- sive action such, for instance, as the viola- tion of the Transjordan frontier, would make such a step impossible until the forces violating the frontier had been withdrawn.

As part of that settlement, to which, I would hope, the Jews and Arabs could then be actively assisted to agree, I feel most strongly that, in respect of the Holy City of Jerusalem, there should be agree- ment to carry out the Bernadotte pro- should be placed under an international posals, which are that the Holy City

authority. No other arrangement can be satisfactory to those millions of persons all over the world, of all creeds, to whom Jerusalem has a special sacred signifi- cance. The purpose of this measure of recognition, as I have said, would be to make the fullest contribution in our power to bring about peace between the two parties.

Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon): I want to get this thing clear. Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to oust U.N.O. and the U.N.O. mediators and that we should take on the job ourselves?

Mr. Eden: I was not proposing that, but I was supposing that His Majesty's Government still had a special influence in that part of the world with both parties, and I suggested that if we wanted to be active in the interests of peace, we needed to be at both ends of the bridge. It is purely as a matter of practical politics that I have advocated what I have.

I would only add that time is pressing. The need for a settlement is pretty urgent; it is not going to get easier as the weeks go by. The suffering has gone on long enough, and I would not myself withhold any practical action which might contribute in any measure to bring this suffering to an end. Then, perhaps, at long last, we may find a way to peace between Jew and Arab. That, after all,