§ 19. Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Governments involved in the present negotiations, that an invitation be extended to the U.S.S.R. to join in the proposed North Atlantic Pact.
Mr. McNeilNo, Sir, and for this reason. The negotiation of a North Atlantic Pact would never have been necessary had not all attempts to organise collective security directly under the United Nations been made impossible (temporarily it is to be hoped) by the obstruction, suspicion and non-co-operation of the Soviet Government.
§ Mr. Platts-MillsAs my right hon. Friend faces it so frankly now that this is really simply an aggressive anti-Soviet pact—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—for war labelled North Atlantic but extending, 16 as we can all see, from the Pacific all the way to the South Seas and made in complete departure from our obligation at U.N.O., had he not better pack up the whole thing?
Mr. McNeilIt is not in contradiction to our obligation, nor has the term "collective security" in the history of our party—the party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged—meant anything other than defence.
§ Sir T. MooreWill the Minister of State agree that this Question suggests the most up-to-date method of using a Trojan horse?
§ Mr. Ronald ChamberlainWould it not be a good deal more useful and logical if Russia and the States of Eastern Europe were invited to the proposed Council of Europe, about which the Foreign Secretary was so deplorably negative last week?
§ Brigadier HeadWould the Minister make it quite clear that the North Atlantic Pact requires no crypto-Allies?