EX-NAVAL MEN (COLOMBIAN ENGAGEMENT). (Hansard, 30 May 1934)

§ Mr. MANDER
I rise to call attention to the enlistment of certain British subjects in the Colombian Navy. The facts as I understand them are that 100 ex-British officers and naval ratings, some of them still on the Reserve, have enlisted for a period of from two to three years in the Colombian Navy. They are to man two 36-knot destroyers purchased, according to ray information, from Vickers. These destroyers are fitted with five 4.7 guns and eight tubes. I understand that no ammunition has been taken with them. That is to be sent out from England and the ships are to do their best to receive the ammunition, if they are successful in dodging the Peruvian Navy, which is to do its best to prevent the ammunition reaching them. I have, no word of criticism for these gallant officers and men. It is perfectly natural for them, with a feeling of professional pride in their calling, to take service where they 324 see it offered. Nor is it in the least surprising that other Navies should desire to enlist what are, after all, the finest seamen and the finest sea fighters in the whole world. That is all perfectly natural, but what does seem to me questionable and, at any rate, worth exploring, is the wisdom and the policy of allowing these enlistments, first, on general grounds and then in the particular circumstances of this case.
I know it is said—the First Lord has given me certain information—that these negotiations were carried out directly with the armament firm concerned and not with the Government. That is true, but none the less the Government, through the First Lord, had to give permission for these men to join. The First Lord defended his action the other day by saying that if he had objected he would have prevented men from getting employment, and that men of other nationalities would have been enlisted. Is that really a very strong argument? If it were carried to its logical conclusion it might be suggested that the unemployed of this country should join the armies and navies and air forces of the world, which would be very glad to get them, because they could not possibly get better people, and in that way the unemployment problem would be solved. I do not for a moment think that is the Government's idea—I give them the credit of that—for solving the unemployment problem.
I suggest that to say the reason for consenting was to provide employment is one that cannot be sustained. Surely we are not going to add to the expert of arms—about which there is so strong a feeling—the export of armed men. As a matter of public policy that seems to be undesirable. I cannot help thinking that it is very unfortunate that this enlistment has been permitted. War began between Colombia and Peru in September, 1932, because certain civilian Peruvians seized the Peruvian town of Leticia. Fighting took place in the early months of 1933. In February, 1933, diplomatic relations were broken off between these two countries and the League of Nations intervened. In January, 1933, the League took over the disputed territory of Leticia for one year. In May, 1934, a Protocol was signed 325 putting an end to the dispute between the two countries. That was only a very few days ago, and it is clear that these negotiations must have been going on at the time when diplomatic negotiations were certainly broken off between the two countries, and when there was the possibility of hostilities taking place again at the end of the year, and was anticipated in certain quarters.
For the Government to have consented in these circumstances to the enlistment of these men in the armed forces of one party to the dispute seems to me to be quite wrong. They were in fact strengthening one side in a dispute which was under the control of the League of Nations. Suppose that Peru had also asked for British sailors, would they have get them, too? Would the Government have had British subjects fighting on both sides in a wretched South American war. There was a possibility of one. I cannot help thinking that the explanation is that the position was not appreciated. I cannot believe that the Government seriously intended to get into a position of this kind. If that be so, is it not better to admit it frankly? Are we quite sure that fighting is over? I want to make one quotation, and I have finished. I saw a few days ago in the "Times" that it was stated from Trinidad: A force of 1,650 Colombian officers and men sail to-night under the command of General Vargas to launch an attack on Peru, in spite of the reported agreement between Peru and Colombia about Leticia. The troops, in service kit but without arms, wandered about the streets of Port of Spain while the ships took in provisions, water, and fuel oil for the voyage up the Amazon tributary Putumayo, whence they will proceed overland towards the scene of action. …. It is understood that the Colombians seek to attack by land, but the Peruvians having a stronger native-manned navy prefer a sea action. If war breaks out again, what is going to happen to these British subjects? Will they be recalled? I trust that the First Lord will be able to give us some information on the subject.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell)
The latest attempt of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is to hold this country up to international obloquy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The 326 chief misstatement that he has made in this case is that which he wrote for the "Manchester Guardian" and which he repeated here to-night. I quote what he said in the "Manchester Guardian": The British Government have provided Colombia with British"——

§ Mr. MANDER
You said it.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL
No, Sir. You said it, and it has nothing whatever to do with the British Government. All the officers and men who joined under contract with the Colombian Navy were retired officers and men. They freely enter into a contract with Colombia, and the British Government have no part whatsoever in it. This is still a free country.
The first point I want to make quite clear is that there is nothing on earth that this Government could have done effectively to prevent these men entering into this contract. There has been some talk about the Foreign Enlistment Act, and it is true that that Act gives us sanctions over our retired officers and men; but the Foreign Enlistment Act only comes into operation when two Powers with whom we are at peace are themselves at war. That does not apply in this case, because, as no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman, Colombia has never been at war. There have been no hostile actions of any sort taken since May, 1933, and now, happily, this unfortunate dispute is once for all, I believe, at an end.
It is true that, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, certain retired men have to ask the Admiralty for permission. Pensioners have to ask for permission before they leave the country, and retired officers have to ask for permission before they take service under a foreign Government. This permission is required because we may want those men. It may be urged that I should not have given permission, but, supposing that I had refused, it would not have stopped them joining if they were willing to give up their pension rights and their retired pay, because that is the only hold which the Admiralty has over them. I have already said in this House that, in the event of hostilities occurring in Colombia, the permission, for what it is worth, which I have given, will be reconsidered. Why should I refuse permission to these men? The 327 Colombians wanted sailors to man two ships which they had bought from Portugal. They wanted them to navigate the ships to South America, and to train the men that were going to take their place. As the hon. Gentleman said, the average contract is for two years. The commanding officer has a contract for five years, but in two years they will be able to train Colombians to take their place; and I understand that there is a clause in the contract which says that these men are not to be called upon to undertake any duties which might be contrary to their obligations as British subjects.
If Colombia had failed to get these men they would only have employed sailors from some other foreign country. What the hon. Member is really asking me to do is to deliberately withhold work from nearly 200 of our nationals and give the jobs to foreigners. Surety it is preferable to have British influence in the Colombian Navy rather than foreign influence. From the lowest standpoint we may expect to have some orders placed in this country instead of being given to foreigners. Even Wolverhampton may 328 benefit. There is a firm in Wolverhampton which is extremely well known to the hon. Member which has a big contract with the Admiralty to provide them with paint, and one may expect that, if these officers want some enamel for their ships, they will place the order in England rather than in a foreign country.
History has always shown that when the English have served in countries like South America they have been in favour of peaceful ordered development.
The hon. Member has asked me what would happen if Peru was in the same position. Peru is a very hypothetical case. I do not think there is the least likelihood of the case ever arising where two opposing navies will be manned by British sailors. If Peru was in the same position as Colombia, I should come to the hon. Member and his friends, because the dissident Liberals must have a wonderful amount of information on the subject of fighting on two sides.