HC Deb 28 July 1937 vol 326 cc3069-71
5. Captain Ramsay

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the House the names of the 25 countries, all members of the League of Nations, who refuse to grant recognition to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on account of the fact that such diplomatic facilities would be used to further a campaign of subversive propaganda?

Mr. Eden

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 5th July. I would point out, however, that, as I stated on that occasion, I cannot answer for the reasons for the refusal of diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union in each of these cases.

Mr. Mathers

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this question is subversive propaganda against a friendly Power?

Miss Wilkinson

And that if the example were followed, would it not be as bad to grant belligerent rights to General Franco?

Following is the list:

Albania. Liberia.
Argentine Mexico.
Republic. Netherlands.
Bolivia. Nicaragua.
Chile. Panama.
Cuba. Peru.
Dominican Portugal.
Republic. Salvador.
Ecuador. Siam.
Egypt. Switzerland.
Guatemala. Uruguay.
Haiti. Venezuela.
Honduras. Yugoslavia.

6. Captain Ramsay

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 25 nations which still refuse diplomatic recognition to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the ground that this recognition is taken advantage of for the carrying on of subversive propaganda, registered any protest at the time against the admission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the membership of the League of Nations; and, if so, whether they still adhere to their protests?

Mr. Eden

At the meeting of the Assembly at which the Soviet Union was admitted to membership of the League of Nations, only the representatives of Portugal and of Switzerland alluded speci- fically to Communist propaganda as a ground on which their Governments were opposed to such a step. I have no information on the matter raised in the second part of the question. On such a matter, as I have stated on a previous occasion, I cannot speak for any but His Majesty's Government.

Captain Ramsay

In view of the fact that the primary object of the League of Nations is to ensure peace, is it a satisfactory state of affairs that 25 nations should assent to the inclusion of a country whose chief objective is civil war?