§ 11.38 a.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI do not rise for the purpose of occupying any great part of the time of the House, but to give the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary the opportunity of answering one or two questions. I believe that all Members of the House will agree that the present state of the world is not very consonant with peace on earth and good will towards men, and we hope that during the time in which the Foreign Secretary will be away from the surveillance of this House we shall see a very great improvement in the state of the world. I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary a few specific questions. The first is with regard to the Disarmament Conference. Can he give us any information as to the progress that has been made with the supplemental and parallel conversations which have taken place with France and Germany, and whether we shall have any report of those proceedings? We should like to know, further, whether he can give us any closer definiton than we had recently of the attitude of the Government towards rearmament. A considerable amount of tendencious matter about rearmament is appearing in the Press. The country has not been calmed down by the statements made in both Houses on the subject of our air defences, and we wish the Foreign Secretary, if he can, to state very clearly just what is the attitude of the Government towards any rearmament whether by Germany or by this country. We recognise that the position of the Disarmament Conference is critical. For our part, we are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of rearmament, and believe it would be a tragedy if the Disarmament Conference were to result actually in rearmament. Further, I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether these parallel conversations are also taking place with the United States of America.
I understand that the Foreign Secretary is shortly to have conversations in Italy. On that point I would ask whether he can make any statement as 1502 to the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the alteration of the constitution of the League of Nations. I would like to know whether any specific questions have been sent to Italy, and whether his visit to Italy is in any way concerned with the proposals which have been put forward respecting the constitution of the League of Nations. We on these benches hold that those proposals are extremely dangerous. The essence of the League of Nations is that it should be a democratic League of Nations, and should not be turned into a holy or unholy alliance of dictatorships: and in any case it should not be converted from a League in which small nations have their full share and their full voice to an instrument for the hegemony of a few great Powers. Anyone who has seen the Foreign Press since the pronouncement made by Signor Mussolini will have seen that the prosals raised very grave searchings of heart among the neutral Powers, among neutral Powers that have done very great service to the League. It has been stated, indeed, that any change in the constitution of the League would be tantamount to destroying it, and there has been a plea that the League should be strengthened. We hold that any attempt to alter the constitution in such a way as to throw all power into the hands of a few great Powers would destroy the League and, with it, destroy the hopes of peace.
The next question I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary is on a very delicate matter. I think everybody is aware that one of the danger points of Europe is Austria. It is difficult to know what is happening in that country, but we hope that the influence of our Government throughout the world will be thrown against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. The position in Austria is extremely difficult. One does not know whether democracy will survive there or fall a prey to one or other of contending dictatorships, but this country not only has its moral duty under the Covenant of the League of Nations but also has taken upon itself heavy financial burdens. The position there is one which gives great concern to every Member of the House, and I hope and believe that our Government will stand firm by Austria if there should be any signs of aggression from any quarter.
1503 The last question is to ask the Foreign Secretary what is the present position in relation to the Sino-Japanese dispute. We have heard nothing of that for some time. Are we acquiescing in a fait accompli? Are we really accepting the flouting of the League of Nations, in fact, the flouting of the whole civilised world? Are we sitting by quietly and allowing Japan to consolidate her position in China? That brings me to what I regard as the second danger point in the world to-day, the Far East. One great country there does not belong to the League, although it has collaborated with the League, and another country has been in the League and has rejected it. There are rumours and suspicions of what may occur in that quarter. While those nations may be outside the League, it is the business of the League and of our representatives, who are among the leaders of the League, to do all that can be done to prevent anything like a danger of hostilities breaking out in that quarter of the world. We believe that this country and the United States can, with Russia, form the biggest bulwark for the peace of the world. Never, since the War, has the outlook been more serious for world peace and Democracy. We hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make a statement this morning that will enable people to feel more comfortable in this season of the year, and to look forward to the New Year with more peace of mind than they have experienced during the year that is passing.
§ 11.47 a.m.
§ Mr. BERNAYSI rise to ask one or two questions, first of all emphasising the questions that have been put by the Leader of the Opposition. What is the attitude of the Government to the question of the reform of the League of Nations put forward by Signor Mussolini? We all agree that the League of Nations, being a human institution, is capable of reform. In fact, M. Avenol, in the speech that he made in the Committee Room upstairs, suggested various ways in which it might be reformed by the speeding up of the procedure. There is also the proposal made by M. Briand for regional chambers. "Reform" may mean so many things. When it is applied to the constitution of another place it means the strengthening of that institution, but, 1504 apparently, when it is applied to the League of Nations by Signor Mussolini it means weakening the League of Nations. Signor Mussolini is apparently pleading for a junta of Powers which, I suggest, would mean nothing more than the dictatorship of the great States.
Who would join such a dictatorship? France would not, owing to her commitments with the Little Entente, and Great Britain could not, owing to her Dominions. The United States obviously would not commit herself to that extent. The dictatorship would consist merely of Japan, Germany and Italy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Russia!"] I am not speaking of Russia. I say nothing disrespectful of those Powers, but where the tranquillity of Europe is concerned they are hardly an impressive combination. This group of great Powers would be the Holy Alliance all over again, and we know what happened to the Holy Alliance. Disputes broke out among the great Powers, and in a few years the Alliance collapsed. Signor Mussolini's proposals would mean a return to the old diplomacy, which would be all the more dangerous because it would mean an admission that the new diplomacy had failed. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman this morning that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a kind of reform in which it will have no part or lot.
The second question which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is as to what kind of lead the Government are giving to a Europe that is drifting to disaster? What, is their attitude to German disarmament? There was a remarkable statement in the Paris "Temps" last week which, with the permission of the House, I will read. With regard to sanctions in the case of rearmament, the "Temps" stated:
Before adopting this standard, one would do well to examine with care the attitude of Great Britain, Recent declarations of both the majority and the Opposition are hardly encouraging in this respect.I wonder if we are not too much stressing disarmament and not sufficiently security, which, after all, can alone be the basis of any disarmament. France apparently thinks that our guarantees are not worth much. What, if anything, can we do to strengthen those guarantees? France 1505 has a right to know what our policy is. The greatest bulwark to security is the inspection of armaments. If only France could know what was happening beyond her frontiers I believe that we would get a new feeling of security. I wish the Government would declare with all their authority for as effective an inspection of armaments as can be devised, including provision for periodic and automatic inspections upon international authority.Thirdly, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what our proposals are at this moment on the question of disarmament. Where do the Government stand? What is happening to those parallel and supplementary efforts that were taking place? For instance, are the Government asking for the abolition of all bombing aeroplanes, subject to the control of civil aviation? Will they support the complete abolition, within five years, of all armaments forbidden to Germany? I know that that is a very large and comprehensive programme. Can we have assurances from the Government that they are working on those lines, and that they are regarding those as proposals for future negotiation? In this House, the idea of Great Britain giving a lead is resisted by hon. Members who think that Great Britain has already done enough.
I suggest two points in answer to that. Great Britain could give a lead because she alone can. She is spared, by the existence of the English Channel, those fears, suspicions and hatreds that beset her neighbours. In this country we have no frontier problem. Our youth are spared what the German and Hungarian youth have to face—the continuous feeling that across a long stretch of barbed-wire entanglements there are territories and factory chimneys that once belonged to them, but are no longer theirs. Great Britain could give a lead because there is some guarantee that, if she does so, the countries of the world will follow. People who go abroad to-day experience a feeling as to the extraordinary prestige of this country. Everybody wants to know what Great Britain thinks of this, and what public opinion thinks of that. There is some hope that Germany would accept proposals if they did not emanate from France, and that France would accept proposals if they did not emanate from Germany.
1506 I would like to ask the Foregin Secretary whether it is not possible that we should make to the Powers of Europe some statement on the lines of Lord Cecil's recent announcement? I know that there are forces in this country hostile to such a policy, and I do not wish to indulge in any party polemics, particularly on the Christmas Adjournment. But the proceedings of the Birmingham conference of the Conservative party were profoundly disquieting. I do not accuse any hon. Member in this House of being a warmonger; war is so fiendish that nobody could possibly support it; but, at the same time, there is a powerful section in this country that seems reckless of the consequences of re-armament, and those who are reckless of the consequences of re-armament fill me with foreboding. I hope that His Majesty's Government will use their immense majority to see that that point of view is righted.
When one examines international affairs to-day, one has a horrible feeling that it has all happened before. These alliances and counter-alliances, these feelers and counter-feelers, an indiscreet utterance here, a sabre-rattling speech there—one is back again in the atmosphere of 1913. I was trying the other day to make this particular point to a very witty ambassador, and his reply to me was: "Yes, history repeats itself. It always repeats itself. But, when it repeats itself twice in a generation, it is a bore"—a classic instance, if I may say so, of the art of under-statement. If history is allowed to repeat itself again, so far as Western civilisation is concerned as we know it, there will be no history left to repeat.
§ 11.58 a.m.
§ Sir EDWARD GRIGGLike hon. Members in all parts of the House, I desire to take this opportunity of wishing the Foreign Secretary God-speed in the extremely difficult mission which he is about to undertake in Europe. I do not see that he can very well this morning, as the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition suggested, say anything that can give us much hope, but we hope that he will at least return with something more promising than we have had up to now. We have, however, to recognise that the Foreign Secretary is going to a Europe which is distracted, and most unpromising for the kind of 1507 negotiations that he is about to undertake. The supreme issue now, as the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) has very truly said, is not disarmament, but security. It is perfectly true that the issue of security has always underlain the discussion of disarmament in recent years, but while Germany was still in the League of Nations it was always possible to hope that the conclusion of a Disarmament Convention would give time in which it would be possible to build up greater confidence in what one might call the Security Clauses of the Covenant. That hope is now scattered to the four winds, and throughout Europe people are asking, not merely how a Disarmament Convention is to be concluded and on what terms, but how, if such a Convention is concluded, is it to be maintained?
The hon. Member for North Bristol just now suggested that France or other countries might be satisfied with an adequate system of inspection and control. That is extremely important; but there is another question behind that. If your system of inspection reports that the Convention is not being observed, what then? And what if, after a few years during which this Convention has been in operation, and during which powers have disarmed to an equal level, some Power then denounces the Convention, or uses the threat of denunciation as the means of extorting concessions which it would not get in other ways? These are the queries which are being heard throughout Europe at the present time. Europe is seething with them because it is dominated now by the fear of this militarist revival in Germany. I think we have to face the fact that this passion in the German heart, which has been smouldering through recent years, has now broken again into a prairie fire. It is a curious thing that the great Wagner music dramas, which are so near to the German heart, very faithfully represent this trait in the German mind. These dramas are supposed to turn upon the history of a ring, but the ring represents power, and the way in which power is sought throughout those dramas is always by the sword. The sword is buried in a tree-trunk; it is drawn out by the hero when surrounded by his enemies. The sword is smashed to pieces, 1508 and it is forged anew by the hero when he seeks again to make his way to power. Indeed, the theme of the Ring, properly described, might, I think, be said to be that of making the world safe for Wotan.