§ Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any communication with respect to the conversations reported to be about to take place between the United States and Soviet Governments.
§ Mr. BevinYes, Sir. The United States Government have now informed me fully of these exchanges. The House will have seen the documents published in the Press, as well as President Truman's statement, and I have no additional information.
Naturally, I have to give careful thought to all that occurs in the international field, but at present I would prefer not to make any statement, although I would like to remind the House that His Majesty's Government always have been, and remain, anxious for a general solution on a world-wide basis, if that is possible. In view, however, of the references to the European Recovery Programme and to the Five Power Treaty by the Soviet Government, I wish to make it clear that nothing that has happened can affect the development and execution of those policies, which, as I explained to the House in my speech of 4th May, are not directed against anyone, but are legitimate developments necessary alike for our own and European prosperity and security.
§ Mr. LipsonWill the Foreign Secretary make it clear that he welcomes these exchanges between representatives of the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States of America?
§ Mr. BevinI want to be quite frank in this answer. I am not anxious to enter into further conferences until the ground has been cleared. I have had too many failures. It is absolutely essential that a good deal of preparatory work is done, and a good deal of what I once called "putting the cards on the table face upwards" has to take place, and then we can possibly get a chance of making a conference for peace really successful. That is the approach—with careful thought, careful action and, I hope, a studious approach, with good will—I shall make to this problem.
§ Mr. GallacherWould it not be possible for the Foreign Secretary of this country to act independently of the United States, to put a few cards on the table, and then invite representatives of the Soviet Union to put down two or three of their cards and have quite frank and open discussions on any questions between them?
§ Mr. BevinWhy should I put down all my cards, and the Soviet only two or three? I do not understand that. The fact is that our cards have been on the table from the moment I took office, and in the discussions on Germany I put forward a long document on the further development of European unity, German unity. Unfortunately, I have been unable to get agreement. Really I stand where I stood on 4th May. The evidence all goes to show that the peoples of the world want peace. If the peoples are allowed to meet, they can have peace. It is only the Communists who stand in the way of it.
Mr. Wilson HarrisDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think that if these conversations between the United States and the Soviet Union succeed, they might form part of that preparation for the larger discussion which he has in mind?
§ Mr. BevinI really think that to have a conference and to have it break down again would cause terrible disappointment in the world. I still believe that a great deal of the ground can be cleared by a diplomatic approach, by the exchange of views, and by trying to understand what 2126 it is that everybody is trying to get. If we can do that, then the preparatory work for the conference can be effective, but I suggest that merely to call a conference again on the basis of generalities, without precise preparatory work, will land us exactly where we were with the Four Power Conference, and the public have been disappointed so many times. I must be forgiven if I say to this House and to the world that I am so anxious for peace, so anxious for a settlement with Soviet Russia, that I want to remove any possible ground for misunderstanding by clearing the ground as far as I humanly can.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesWill the Minister give due consideration to the warning given to the world by Sir John Boyd-Orr in his recent speech, and will he, in his approach to this question, consider the broad economic outlook and try his best to negotiate with the Soviet Union in order to break the tension to which Sir John Boyd-Orr referred?
§ Mr. BevinNo one has done more than I have done on the economic field since I have held this office. I think the work I described on 4th May in the Far East and in South-East Asia was an evidence of that. All this is based on the assumption that we are holding up the thing. If I can get the idea out of the heads of our friends that it is we who have been holding up peace—I have had no idea of it, I have had nothing to fit in at all, all I want is peace. I emphasise that. All I want is peace, but I cannot get peace in the world if I have to ask the Western Powers, and Powers in other parts of the world, to sacrifice their principles and their spiritual beliefs in order to fit in with something with which they do not agree.
§ Mr. ScollanMay I ask the Foreign Secretary to clear up one point? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of, or informed of these negotiations which have now been forced on the public, that obviously have a tremendous propaganda value from the Soviet point of view? Was the Foreign Secretary aware that these negotiations were going on?
§ Mr. BevinNo, I was not. I did not know anything about them until I heard about them on the radio on Monday morning. But this is one of the problems, as I understand it. The Ambassador of the United States was instructed to 2127 have an exchange of views with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. That is the normal thing, but before the United States received the reply, it was published over the Tass Agency. I suggest to this House that while that diplomatic usage goes on, that clearing of the ground and understanding is almost impossible, because if an ambassador cannot go to a Foreign Minister in another country and discuss quite frankly and ask questions, and then send back to his government the opinions of the Foreign Minister without publication—this is not secret diplomacy; it is an attempt to ascertain views—if he cannot do that, in order to bring the parties together, then the situation is not only intolerable but peace is impossible.