FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Hansard, 22 January 1948)

§ Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)
The Minister of State has added nothing constructive to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and he failed to answer any of the important questions asked him from this side of the House. Some extremely important questions were put to the Foreign Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) about Greece. But these questions were practically ignored. The least satisfactory part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement referred to the Peace Treaties with the ex-enemy countries in Eastern Europe. I would like to say a few words about that.
The Minister of State said he would "seek to escape from any decisive statement" on the peace treaty implementation, and went on to say that everything was being carefully studied. That is not nearly good enough. Taking the military classes first, we were told before the Christmas Adjournment that the Bulgarian armed forces were about three times the size laid down as the maximum in the Peace Treaty for that country and the Foreign Secretary agreed that that discloses an extremely grave state of affairs. Under Article 12 of the Treaty the zone on the Macedonian border should be demilitarized in respect of certain fixed equipment. That zone has never been inspected by the British authorities although we have a right and a duty under the Treaty to do so. I would ask the Government why that zone has not been inspected, and is it not doubly important that we should take advantage of our rights under the Treaty to inspect that zone in view of the fact that Bulgaria has refused to allow the United Nations committee of inquiry to go to the country. I should have thought that the Bulgarian refusal to allow the United Nations committee to investigate was the complete answer to what is going on in that area.
519 I can only describe our failure to take advantage of our rights as definite appeasement. It was only yesterday that the question of the armed forces in Roumania and Bulgaria was raised. Today, the Minister of State said that these armed forces were approximately in conformity with the maximum size laid down in the Peace Treaties, but he did not mention what arose in a reply to a question that in the case of neither of these countries were we in possession of information regarding the strength and armament of the police and secret police forces.
It is well known—and I drew attention to it yesterday—that in these Communist-dominated countries these secret police forces are usually as big as and better armed than the army itself. That is so in Poland and in Yugoslavia, concerning which I have the figures and I suggest most strongly to the Foreign Secretary that it is most misleading to this House and to the country to gloss over this extremely important aspect of the strength of the armed forces in those countries. Why have these ex-enemy countries refused to give us information? I think I know the answer to that question. I think we will be told that Madame Pauker, the Foreign Secretary of Roumania, will not disclose this information to us because of the wording of the Peace Treaty. She can claim, looking through a legal loophole, that as all three occupying Powers do not seek this information there is no reason to give it. That is my guess. The fact that the Soviet Union already knows at least as much about the armed forces strength as Madame Pauker does herself will not be a very forceful argument. The Minister of State yesterday disgusted me when I raised this question of a secret police force with reference to Hungary when he said that if there are such."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 194.] he did not know the strength. I think that I am mistaken—I think that it was with reference to Roumania, but it is immaterial. Roumania and Hungary are both police States on the Communist model and they are both running secret police forces; and he has no right to mislead us in that way. Yet another example of what I can only call appeasement was with reference to another Question yester- 520 day when the Government were asked whether the Soviet Union had complied with their obligation to withdraw their armed forces from Bulgaria, and only to maintain such armed forces in Roumania and Hungary as were required to protect their lines of communication; and the Government quoted as their source of information a report received from Russian sources. It seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs that the Minister was not able to inform us from British sources, and that is the information to which we all look forward.
I believe that one essential of British foreign policy is that it should be British or national in its outlook. This has been said several times and I propose to expand this particular theme. If our foreign policy is conducted on party lines one grave result which must spring from that is a serious upheaval in our international relations whenever there is a change of Government. That must be obvious even to the thickest head opposite. The reason why the Conservative Party has given such loyal support to the Government's foreign policy during these two and a half years springs, I believe, from the importance of British foreign policy being British, but I believe we have been over-zealous in supporting the Foreign Secretary against the stabs in the back he has received from his own so called supporters. A united front is all very well provided it is facing the enemy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) referred at some length to this question of international Socialism and the United Socialist States of Europe about which we have heard quite a lot today from the benches opposite and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), if I have got his words right I think I have—said it would be utterly wrong to base plans for a united Europe on the assumption that one particular faith will prevail. But my right hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking the Foreign Secretary was not doing this very thing.
I propose to deal with the dangers and fallacies of a specifically Socialist foreign policy and also with the cross currents and fears and doubts which exist at the present moment inside the Socialist Party. Does a specifically Socialist foreign policy exist? There is a mass of evidence to prove that 521 it does and I have taken some trouble to search into it. I will quote, first, from Chapter IV of the Labour Party Year Book, 1946–7, "International Socialism," a few brief extracts. In reading these extracts I would remind the House that the Chairman of the Labour Party is the Secretary of State for War and therefore it is no good anybody telling me that what is contained in this chapter does not affect our foreign policy. …. in 1923 the democratic socialist parties of the world formed separately the Labour and Socialist International. Later on: …. resolutions suffered from vagueness and equivocation. …. the spread of fascism robbed the L.S.I. of one member after another, and the outbreak of war in 1939 found it powerless to do anything but transfer some of its funds and records to places of safety. And later: So in the absence of other initiative, the Labour Party called all socialist parties together at Clacton in May, 1946, to discuss the form of future action …. The Labour Party sent four Cabinet Ministers—Hugh Dalton, Philip Noel-Baker, Emanuel Shinwell and Aneurin Bevan—as well as its Chairman, Harold Laski. …. the magnificent victory of the British Labour Party, and its steady record of achievement during the last year, has been a permanent inspiration to the whole of the world. The whole of this chapter is a perfect exposé of the weakness and futility of International Socialism as a force in any way capable of weighing down the democratic scales against either Fascism or Communism. There is one statement in here with which I entirely agree, and that is on Page 308: But when a Party becomes a Government it becomes responsible no longer simply to its own members, but to the country as a whole. I heartily agree with that, though I profoundly disagree with most of the rest of the chapter. One last extract: The survival (of The Central and East European Parties) depends not only on their own willingness to co-operate sincerely with Russia and the Communists, but on Anglo-Soviet friendship. I now read in the newspapers that, following the failure of the Socialist International conferences in Antwerp and Zurich, the Labour Party, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for War, has decided to summon a conference of Socialist parties—I emphasise 522 the word "Socialist"—of the Marshall Plan countries in London in March. Has that the approval of the Prime Minister? I hope that when he speaks tomorrow he will say whether that is or is not so. We are entitled to know.
I pass now to some further enlightening documents: Foreign Policy: The Labour Party's Dilemma"— "dilemma" is the right word— by Leonard Woolf, with a critical comment by W. N. Ewer. Foreword by Harold Laski. Leonard Woolf is chairman of the Fabian International Bureau and was for many years secretary and later chairman of the Labour Party's Advisory Committee on International Questions. He has written, among other books, a book called, "Quack, Quack." Mr. Ewer is the well-known and much respected diplomatic correspondent of the "Daily Herald." Again, in case I may be accused of putting this up unfairly, may I point out that the Fabian International Bureau has on its advisory committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the right hon. Gentleman who is Minister of National Insurance. So that gives it a stamp of Government authority.
This is a most amazing document. It contains the fantastic, and in my opinion un-British, theories of its main author, Mr. Leonard Woolf, which make a curious comparison with the comparatively sound British common sense of Mr. Ewer. On Page 8 I read—and these words are part of my main theme: the second fundamental of British Socialist foreign policy is that our foreign policy should, whenever and wherever possible, encourage and protect Socialism abroad. From the foreword, by Mr. Laski, a very revealing one, I will only read this: It is the committee's hope that out of of the discussion it arouses"— that is, this pamphlet— we can go on to the next stage, and that we can find there agreed criteria of action which will help to clarify the present controversies and doubts within the British Socialist movement. May I be forgiven for saying, "What a hope."
523 Next there is "Approach to Foreign Policy," published by Transport House, and No. 11 in the "Labour Discussion Series." I will only read a short extract from this. It is: For example, a Tory Government may believe it is in the national interest to defend by force the foreign investments of big business men"— that is a typical example of lying propaganda, or to prevent Communist revolution in any foreign country. A Labour Government may believe that, while neither of those interests is truly national, British power should be used to protect Socialist governments abroad or to overthrow Fascist regimes. Next, I have G. D. H. Cole on "Labour's Foreign Policy," a very interesting document, published by the "New Statesman."

§ Mr. Austin (Stretford)
How much?

§ Major Beamish
This one cost sixpence. All I will read from this pamphlet by a man whom I would describe as the pundit of the Socialist movement, is one of his conclusions that: The unity of Europe should rest on Socialist foundations. He goes on to advocate a "Socialist federation of the West." But he mitigates that somewhat by saying that it should be based firmly on the liberal tradition, with a small "I" for the word "liberal."
The last document to which I wish to draw attention is the Report of the 46th Annual Conference of the Labour Party at Margate, in 1947. This is extremely serious. This document costs two shillings and sixpence. From among a clutter of highly irresponsible suggestions I select two resolutions, of which I will read part only. The first resolution was moved by a deputy from Bury, and it said: This Conference, advocating that the most positive and energetic assistance be given to building up Social-Democratic and co-operative forces in Europe and the world, puts on record…. That is from the first resolution. The extract from the second resolution is: Thereby creating the conditions in which a Socialist and peaceful Europe can develop. Simultaneously the Conference calls on the Party to carry further its efforts to bring together the Socialist movements in Europe to discuss concrete steps directed towards the 524 economic and political reconstruction of Europe. To my astonishment, I find that, contrary to the view of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Foreign Secretary accepted and blessed both these resolutions. In other words, the Foreign Secretary is fully committed to a purely Socialist foreign policy, which seeks to foster social democracy all over Europe. [Interruption.]—Is anything wrong?

§ Mr. Austin
only rise to say that, although the hon. Gentleman says the Foreign Secretary is committed to a purely Socialist foreign policy, I would point out that, so far, he has not shown it.

§ Major Beamish
That only goes to show still further the doubts and fears in the Socialist Party, about which I am talking. I would like to draw attention to these two resolutions at the Labour Party Conference, and I refer to these only among a number of irresponsible suggestions. The Foreign Secretary, according to the report of the Labour Party Annual Conference, page 180, said: 'I have no objection to the Bury resolution, which cheers one up. As to the Hampstead resolution, on the Economic Commission for Europe, I certainly not only will accept but welcome it'. What are the facts about international Socialism in Europe? When the Cominform came into being as a tactical headquarters for international Communism, it could have been a signal for the European Socialists' finest hour. But no, Sir. What happened? Socialism in Europe gave the final proof that it is compromised and rotten. The truth of the matter is that, ever since Karl Marx was a "drone" living in Soho on the earnings of Engels, all liberal-minded Social democrats have been the bitter enemies of the Communists and what is inexplicable to me is that so few liberal-minded Socialists have realised this fundamental fact.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury)
rose—

§ Major Beamish
I am sorry, I cannot give way. There is little time left. What I was going to say was that I and, I believe, my colleagues, have everything in common with liberal-minded Socialists where fundamentals and principles are concerned. But, instead of the Social Democratic parties in Europe realising 525 this fact most of them have been hypnotised and fascinated completely by the outworn and old-fashioned theories of Karl Marx. Marxian Socialists are the most reactionary diehards, brass-hats and Blimps alive, and those who hold these views have never brought their economic theories up-to-date since 1848.
I wrote a letter to "The Times," and it was printed—as so seldom are my letters to "The Times"—under the heading "Socialism in Europe." It was by way of an answer to a speech, similar to the one which we heard about an hour ago, by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross). I said: May I record some facts which should finally dispose of these dangerous fallacies?

(1) In Bulgaria, Roumania, Yugoslavia and Albania all Socialists who dared actively to oppose Communism are murdered, are in hiding, or have fled the country, except for M. Lulchev and his five deputies in Bulgaria. In all four countries strong Socialist parties have merged, or sunk their identity, with the Communists and assisted the latter in the formation of police states on the Nazi-Communist model.

(2) In Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estcnia, and the Soviet zone of Germany, Socialists are no longer known under that name.

(3) Out of the other twenty countries in the whole of the rest of Europe (none of which is mentioned in (1) or (2) above) only Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden have absolute Socialist parliamentary majorities, though in Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland the Socialists gained more votes than any other single party at the last elections.

(4) In Poland and Hungary the stronger parts of the Socialist parties have given active support and encouragement to the Communists in establishing Totalitarian regimes.

(5) In every country in Europe, including Great Britain, the Socialist parties are split on the question of whether to subordinate their inner liberal and Christian feelings to their Marxist ideology."
The significant thing about that letter was that it was never answered. The reason why it was never answered was that there is no answer to it. I had hoped—but time is too short—to refer to some of the anomalies which arose at international Socialist conferences recently. Signor Nenni, who is a Communist collaborator, was invited, while Signor Saragat from Italy only had an unofficial invitation. The gallant Petrescu, who gave such brave evidence in the case of Maniu, was not invited at all while Roumanian Social Democrats, indistinguishable from 526 Communists, were invited. Premier Cyrankiewicz, from Poland, was invited, while such a great trade union and Socialist leader as Zulawski was ignored and not wanted. Premier Szakasits, near-Communist Premier of Hungary, was invited, and M. Ries, Minister of Justice in a country where there is no justice, was the official delegate. While the conference was going on, the unfortunate and elderly M. Peyer, the much-respected Socialist leader, arrived at the conference and was told that he was not wanted and was rebuffed. That is the sort of thing which was hound to happen.
I had wanted to make some choice remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) but as my time is practically finished, I must draw to an end. I apologise if he has waited up and has been disappointed.
I hold that the major objects of British foreign policy must be the maintenance of peace, freedom and the prosperity that comes from a rising standard of living, in the first place, for the British Commonwealth and Empire. That will never be achieved so long as the Soviet Union sprawls outside its pre-1939 boundaries. So long as these objects depend on the rotten peg of international Socialism, so long will peace be endangered. I hope that the Prime Minister, when he replies to-morrow, will make it clear once and for all whether British foreign policy seeks to foster Socialism in Europe or whether his recent conversion—and it is very recent—to a realisation of the world menace of Communism means that British foreign policy is now to be British and not Socialist. I hope, if he answers nothing else I have said, he will answer that one point. To put it another way—are the alien theories of the hon. Member for Gateshead, the woolly thinking of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) and the sloppy idealism of those who still believe in unilateral disarmament as an example to a potential aggressor armed to the teeth, repudiated once and for all? If so, then the Foreign Secretary can comfort himself with the fact that 90 per cent. of the nation—and more—will be solidly behind him. Patience is a virtue but when carried to excess it becomes appeasement.

§ Mr. Austin
May I rise on a point of Order and request information from you, Sir? If I were fortunate enought to catch 527 your eye for the remaining moment, would I be allowed to continue my speech in the Debate tomorrow?

§ Mr. Speaker
No—because it is a different Question to-morrow. If it were an adjourned Debate, then the right would carry on, but tomorrow it will be a 528 different Question. I am now about to put the Question, "That the House do now adjourn."