CO537-3702 — Page 94

651

Foreign Affairs

652

the other side, in the hope that that wi equalise the extent of time that has been taken up by the last two speakers.

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR: Cocks.] favourable opportunity to put before Russia, either through a meeting between the Big Three-which the Prime Minis- ter does not seem to like very much- or through the ordinary diplomatic chan- nels, the proposition of a world truce based upon an agreement to differ; to divide the world into two separate spheres of influence and activity.

I would like to see that put forward. If two Powers, or two people, cannot get on very well they have either to fight or agree to differ. As the East and West cannot agree on any common political action, they had better remain apart in their respective spheres. Those spheres will have to be strictly defined. The West must assure the Soviet, in the most formal and categorical manner, that it will never interfere in the Soviet half of the world. In return the Soviet must give a similar assurance to us to refrain from interfering with the West, and the writ of the Cominform must cease to run on our side of the "Iron Curtain." Let East be East and West be West. Let the two sides trade together as much as possible, but reduce the political con- tacts to the absolute minimum.

That would give us plenty of work to do for 50 years, each cultivating his own garden. Perhaps at the end of that time we might be able to cultivate one garden between us. In the meantime, let us live and let live and practice mutual toleration. If we do not interfere with each other politically we may, in the end, be able to co-operate on things non- political, perhaps in the development of the world food supplies as suggested by Sir John Boyd Orr. Let us have two worlds a Russian world and a Western world, with a world truce between them. On this basis peace may be preserved for 50 years. Without it I must reluctantly say that, trying to discern through the darkening shades of the future the dim shape of things to come, I cannot see the form or the, features of peace.

Mr. Speaker: There must be fairness on both sides, not only with regard to the hon. Members who speak, but also there should be some fairness in the length of the speeches on each side. Therefore, I propose to call two hon. Members from the Opposition side of the House in order to make up for the length of the two speeches we have had from

109 N 14

Mr. Driberg (Maldon): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I would, with respect, submit to your Ruling on a point which is entirely within your discretion; but the Opposition and the Government sides of the House in a Debate of this kind are not formally opposed to each other in the same way as subjects.

on other

Mr. Speaker: I must select speakers from each side of the House and I think I am acting with fairness in doing what I propose.

Mr. Cocks: May I say a word of personal explanation? It is not often that I speak in this House. There was no agreement at all and nothing was mentioned to me as to the length of the speeches. I am indeed sorry if I have exceeded my time.

Mr. Speaker: There was no agreement with regard to the hon. Member, and neither was there with the hon. Gentle- man who preceded him. I try to call as many hon. Members on each side as is possible. One has to consider the con- venience of hon. Members.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Further to that point of Order. In this proper and natural allocation of time, while there is a funda- mental agreement on all points on foreign policy between the Front Bench on either side, there is a much narrower group of Members on either side who are opposed to that foreign policy. The allocation might very well be, instead of between one side and the other, between those who support and those who oppose the foreign policy.

Mr. Gallacher: That is a very good idea.

Mr. Speaker: That is a delightful theory. I understand, therefore, that only Independent Members should be called. Actually I am now calling an Independent Member and, therefore, I think that I am doing the right thing. Mr. Vernon Bartlett.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett (Bridgwater): I have been spending the last ten minutes tearing up notes on most of the points I

9 DECEMBER 1948

653

Foreign Affairs oped to make in this Debate. I will be as brief as possible. I take it that one of the main objects of a Debate of this kind is that hon. Members should put forward as far as possible suggestions which may enable our country to play a more useful and larger part in world affairs. The Foreign Secretary explained in great detail the immense and bewilder- ing variety of considerations which in- fluence British policy at present.

But pragmatism is not enough."

I have been trying, partly through listening to other speeches, to find out what should be the basis of British foreign policy now and the principle which should be behind it, particularly in our position with regard to the Soviet Union and the United States. I want very humbly, and I hope briefly, to put forward one or two suggestions about where we should stand in regard to those two great countries. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) put for- ward an argument that we should throw in our hands entirely with the Soviet Union and impose almost by force the Soviet Union's policy on the United States. That is not the view shared by There the majority of hon. Members. are other hon. Members who frequently argue that the job of the British Govern- ment should be to stand roughly between both these great countries taking neither one side nor the other and being as care- ful and as discreet as we can in the hope that nobody will notice us. That seems to be a very negative policy and it can- not possibly be carried out.

We cannot stand half-way between those two countries for the simple reason that in the United States, as in this country, every citizen has the right to read what newspapers he likes, to make what speeches he likes and to criti- cise the Government as he pleases. We know that those same conditions, which are vital to us, do not exist in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, nothing could do more harm than to follow a policy in which we did everything that the Americans wanted. I maintain that, although this country may be most impoverished, we have а political experience and tolerance which are of the utmost value in the world. I am not sure that we have ever had greater poten- tialities for influencing affairs than we have now even though in all material matters we are so weak,

109 N 15

mense

Foreign Affairs

654

The United States, having only so recently shown an interest in international affairs, has not yet that experience which is essential if she is to shoulder her im- responsibilities successfully. I believe, therefore, that our job is ex- tremely important. The United States still has to learn that foreign policy is much more slow moving and delicate than domestic policy. As a result, in the Far East and in Western Europe it seems to me that the United States is in danger, by its impatience, of making very grave, really disastrous mistakes.

At present in London a high-powered American committee is meeting to dis- cuss what factories in the Western zone of Germany should be recommended to be taken off the list of factories to be destroyed as being dangerous. Members of that committee who have done their job conscientiously and taken a great deal of time going round these factories have come to the conclusion that many of them that we have put on the list for dismantling as being dangerous or as being needed for reparations should nevertheless be left to the Germans. It is easy to understand the natural reasons behind that American argument.

The American taxpayer is naturally and rightly tired of subsidising his ex- enemies, as he has to do both in Japan and in Germany. He knows that if Ger- many can be put on her feet again and can become a self-supporting and rela- tively prosperous country, the danger of Communism there will immediately be greatly diminished. He knows, and we know, that if German production can be speeded up, that will greatly assist the successful working of the Marshall Plan.

These are good American arguments, but it seems to me that the Foreign Office should always keep in mind that we are Europeans and that we under- stand Europe in a way in which the Americans cannot possibly understand that area. There are arguments to be put on the other side. For example, despite her financial and political muddles, we should not forget the very great economic recovery that there has been in France. If there are political troubles in France and in China it is very much because in both countries there are Chinese and Frenchmen who have tried to introduce the democratic system in their countries against great difficulties-- in the case of France, I should not have