PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND MARSHAL STALIN (PROPOSED MEETING) (Hansard, 7 February 1949)

§ Mr. Piratin (Mile End)
Last Monday the British public and, I imagine, the people of other countries too, read their newspapers with a sigh of hope if not exactly with relief, for the announcement was made that in answer to questions by a news agency, Mr. Stalin had said that he would be pleased to meet President Truman.
Today at Question Time the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) asked the Prime Minister whether he would take any steps in this matter to ensure the coming together of the heads of State of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister correctly said that, of course, he had no authority in the matter, but I should like to suggest that this is not exactly the occasion for formalities, and it is for this reason that I have sought to obtain the opportunity of an Adjournment Debate in the hope that the result of my efforts and perhaps those of others will be to influence the Government to take some steps in a direction which may lead to the path of peace.
We now know that Mr. Acheson, the Secretary of State of the United States, has brushed aside Mr. Stalin's offer. However, in the first place I should like the House to recall the various reactions which have taken place in the last week. I have looked at the newspapers, and the first reactions, which I imagine were of a spontaneous nature, show the true feelings in many cases of those who purport to express public opinion. The "Daily Herald" last Monday, in the report of its Washington correspondent, said: If there is to be a meeting the first problem will be to settle what is the mutually suitable place. The Washington correspondent of the "Daily Herald" saw as the first problem merely the question of a meeting place. He also reported that Senator Tom Connally, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said: 133 Stalin's statement is a significant development. It will be welcomed by those anxious to preserve world peace. He further reported that Mr. Warren Austin, the chief United States delegate to U.N.O., said: The statement is apparently a move in the right direction but it contains many provisos. On the same day the "News Chronicle" in its leader said: The fact remains that Stalin's overtures to the West cannot be laughed off or cavalierly rejected. A very interesting comment came from "The Times" Paris correspondent, who on 1st February wrote: Whatever duplicity Moscow may have shown in the past, this new approach must not be ignored if it provides the slightest chance of alleviating the world malaise. Those were the comments made on the very first day when the announcement of Stalin's replies to the newspaper agency was made in the Press.
But in the later days of last week there was a change, and in my opinion it was quite obvious that this change in large measure, if not completely, was inspired. One of the big points which emerged in the Press was that all this was a propaganda manoeuvre. "The Times" in its leader on 3rd February wrote: It may be that Mr. Stalin does not really want a conference, but is only concerned to squeeze the last drop of propaganda from this exchange of messages. On Sunday "Reynolds News" summed the matter up in its leader in this way: Newspaper commentators have thought up every possible reason for Stalin's words except what might just conceivably have been the right one—that he meant what he said. In the United States two voices have been speaking, and I make the point in this way because we are often told that there are two voices speaking in the Kremlin. The two voices in the United States are those of the President, Mr. Truman, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, who follows in this respect his predecessor, Mr. Marshall. It is interesting to note that though the invitation or offer, however indirect it was, was addressed to the President, Mr. Acheson gave his observations at a Press Conference on the Wednesday while President Truman spoke at a Press Conference on the Thursday, and to a large number of questions President Truman had no comments to make except to refer his 134 questioner to what Mr. Acheson had said on the previous day.
I would remind the House that in October President Truman attempted to send as his emissary to Moscow Chief Justice Vinson and he was prevented from doing so by Mr. Marshall who flew post haste to America to prevent it. President Truman then said this regarding his efforts, and I quote "The Times" of 19th October last: Far from cutting across the existing negotiations within the scope of the United Nations or the Council of Foreign Ministers, the purpose of the mission was to improve the atmosphere in which they must take place and so help in producing fruitful and peaceful results. I think that is the best answer to the Minister of State, who I assume will answer this Debate, and to the speech he made last week, I think on Thursday, when he complained about Mr. Stalin not using the normal diplomatic channels. We have been using the normal diplomatic channels for quite a long while and we have not been very successful. I am not opposed to using the normal diplomatic channels——

§ Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) says "we have been using." Who does he mean by "we"?

§ Mr. Piratin
The Government. I am as much at liberty to speak for the Government as is the hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite. I speak of course of the Government; I thought that was understood. This Government have been carrying on their negotiations through the normal diplomatic channels, but we cannot afford to ignore any channel other than the diplomatic one, and if such a door is opened to us, however slightly, I think we should take advantage of the fact and enter.
In fact, a gesture has been made—perhaps only a gesture—towards peace, and it is a gesture which we cannot ignore. The people of our country, if not many other countries, have been listening for a long while, since almost immediately after the end of the last war, to war talk, to re-armament talk, to re-armament plans, to the extension of conscription and, more recently in the last year or so, to military pacts. Now Mr. Stalin raises the question of peace and he answered four questions which were 135 posed to him. All four points are worthy of our consideration.
First, he spoke of a joint declaration with the United States not to go to war with each other. Of course, the Press and others would say that this already exists within the terms of the United Nations Charter. That is so, but I would remind the House that things are going on today which are much outside the terms of the United Nations Charter.

§ Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)
By whom, in the main?

§ Mr. Piratin
By whom, in the main? Why, by us. The Government.

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
Which Government?

§ Mr. Piratin
Your Government. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) does not like that, does he? The military preparations which are going on now, and particularly the military pacts which are proceeding, are not covered by the United Nations Charter.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and I have on occasion raised a number of questions with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary concerning the basis of the Western Union Pact and, now, the basis of the coming Atlantic Pact. It has been made clear from the evasive answers given by the Ministers concerned that these do not hinge on the United Nations Charter. The Atlantic Pact, like the Western European Pact, is not a regional pact within the United Nations Charter. It is being carried through without consultation and without the sanction of the United Nations. It is not regional; it is a worldwide pact and a pact dominated by the United States. In fact, under the terms of the United Nations Charter it is illegal, according to Articles 51 and 52 of the Charter, Articles which the hon. Member for Luton and I have raised from time to time, and upon which we have received no satisfactory answers. Hence I say that this joint declaration by the foremost statesmen of the two greatset Powers could lay the basis for further peace measures.
The second point which Mr. Stalin answered concerned co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States. 136 He said that he is willing to see co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States for peace and gradual disarmament. Now it is argued that the United States has already disarmed since the war, but if one faces the facts and figures, one sees that 33 per cent. of the United States' budget this year is being devoted to military expenditure and, indeed, according to Mr. Truman himself, 76 per cent. of the whole of the budget is being spent on past and future wars. That excludes aid to foreign countries for military purposes. This question is not unimportant: as against that, only 6 per cent. of the American budget this years is being spent on social services—6 per cent. against 33 per cent. on war purposes. In the Soviet Union—and the right hon. Gentleman knows these arguments and these figures for he had to deal with them at Paris a few weeks ago—it is claimed that the percentage of budget expenditure for military purposes is 17 per cent. At the same time, 30 per cent. of the budget is for social services.
A Labour Government and a Labour Foreign Secretary and Minister of State should not ignore these figures. When the Minister of State presents, as, no doubt he will, the argument of the difference in the character of the budget of the Soviet Union compared with that of the United States, as he did in Paris, I would ask him—I am dealing with percentages, not actual figures—not to ignore those other figures which I have given and which he will not dispute I trust. I can substantiate them. The Minister of State must recognise that the basis in America is a lower basis than that in the Soviet Union, which is an overall basis, and that while in America the percentage of the budget on social services is only 6 per cent., in the Soviet Union it is 30 per cent.
I mention these figures to show that a country which is out to provide social services to that degree is not a country out to make war or that desires war. As Mr. Warren Austin is reported to have said, this is a move in the right direction. I believe that the move that Mr. Stalin has suggested, that they should come together for the purpose of gradual disarmament, is something at which we should look with consideration.

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
Since the hon. Member has got these figures. I think 137 the House would like to hear from him how many divisions the Americans can put into the field at the present time and how many divisions the Soviet Union can put into the field at the present time.

§ Mr. Piratin
I am afraid I cannot give the answer. Time and again when I and other hon. Members have asked the various Ministers concerned to give us information concerning our own armies or services, we have not been able to get the information. Nor am I disputing that it is not right to give such information. The hon. Member is really out of Order in asking me, as a Member of this House, to give information about a foreign country.
The third point with which Mr. Stalin dealt was the question of Berlin and he said that the Berlin problem could be solved if there were a return to Four-Power co-operation. I put it to the Minister of State frankly and bluntly: Can we afford to disregard this? We can only afford to disregard this if we have some other solution. He knows perfectly well, as the House knows, whatever our differences may be, that we have no other solution, that we are jogging along hoping that something may turn up. But we have no other solution, and there is no reason why, in the light of this offer, we should not attempt to get together to see if, on this occasion, we can resolve the matter on the basis of Four-Power co-operation.

§ Mrs. Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton
But it was the Soviet Union that broke up Four-Power co-operation in Germany.

§ Mr. Piratin
That is a matter of opinion according to one's reading of the facts.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury)
It is a simple matter of fact.

§ Mr. Piratin
The facts, in my opinion, disclose a very different state of affairs from that in which one has been led to believe, by the distortions in the Press of this country. It was not the Soviet Union that introduced the new currency. It was Bizonia that introduced the new currency. It was not the Soviet Union that was responsible for the impasse that developed from that. Therefore, I put the question to the hon. Lady. If she wants to blame the Soviet Union for responsibility, she cannot deny that, 138 according to the published statement, Mr. Stalin said that he was willing to discuss the question of Berlin, among other things, on the basis of Four-Power co-operation. If she wants to insist that the Soviet Government were responsible in the first place, and have been responsible from the beginning to the end, will she not agree that this gesture is one worthy of consideration, and that our Government ought to take up the gesture? Does she not agree with that?

§ Mrs. Middleton
That all depends upon the terms upon which such cooperation is to take place in the future.

§ Mr. Piratin
Absolutely right.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
It must be discussed.

§ Mr. Piratin
Absolutely right. I would point out to the hon. Lady that so far as America is concerned—the offer was not addressed to us—but so far as the American Government are concerned, far from their trying to find out more details, there has been plenty of adverse propaganda, as I said before. I think the hon. Lady will agree with me that this offer is worth looking into more carefully. I shall put one or two points forward for her consideration later in my arguments.
The fourth point that Mr. Stalin, made was the fact that he was prepared to meet President Truman to confer on the question of a peace pact. I ask the House to remember on these points that, while it is true they were made not in the most formal way, while it is true that the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States may take objection to that informality and that the offers were not made through the usual diplomatic channels, one thing cannot be overlooked, and that is that Mr. Stalin made these offers to meet President Truman at a time not when his Government or the system which it stands for is on the decline, but rather when it is growing stronger. Let us face that. It is a fact that so far as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are concerned, their economies are stabilised and moving forward, which cannot be claimed for other countries.
Is it not the case that the world had a bit of a shock last week, when the Soviet Union was prepared to throw into the pool 100 million bushels of wheat, 139 which will not be such a bad thing for our country and other countries who want to buy wheat for their people? Obviously, the Soviet Union can only do this when she feels strong enough to be able to do so. These arguments are beyond dispute. As regards the case of Communism, no one is disputing the events taking place in China, and however one may want to interpret them, the conclusion must be that Communism is on the advance and, therefore, the Soviet Prime Minister, in making these offers, is not making them at a time when he is on the retreat, but at a time when he is strong and getting stronger.
The same thing cannot be said of the capitalist Powers, and so far as Western European economy is concerned, we are not marching forward, in spite of the figures which we have had from time to time from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. The "Economist" on 8th January, said, with regard to European aid: There is no means by which the Marshall countries can, even with the present scale of American aid, prevent a serious fall in their standards of living in 1952. There were several arguments set out to support that proposition. The House must be aware of the reports in the Press this weekend and today of the business slump in America. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) has no right to laugh like that. I am not concerned with business profits and the way shares go up or down.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The hon. Gentleman is; he is a bear.

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
I was only laughing because the collapse of American economy is something that has been prophesied by the Communists in their speeches throughout the world for a long time, and it has not materialised.

§ Mr. Piratin
If the hon. Gentleman was more acquainted with the American Press reports of authoritative sources, he would know perfectly well that the chances in 1949 of avoiding a slump are roughly one to two, on the estimate of American industrialists. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 140 his White Paper on the four-year programme said in the preamble that the success of the four-year programme depended upon a stable economy. There are many factors, primarily the factor of the American slump, which will decide the question of a stable economy.
Therefore, I make the point that this offer is made at a time when the Soviet Union is stable, when Communism is on the advance, and when the countries in Western Europe are not stable and capitalism is on the decline. There are differences in America. There are some who do not want peace. Here is the answer then to the hon. Member for Bucklow. Here is a quotation from the "United States News" of 31st December: Peace, if it really arrived, would upset things. At present arms expenditure and aid to other countries are bolstering up business. That is a businessman's view. Obviously such people do not welcome a peace offer; they do not welcome what has now become popularly known as the "peace offensive." On the other hand, there are in America forces who want peace: these are the forces of the common people, many of whom showed it when they supported Mr. Truman, particularly because of his attempts to send Judge Vinson to Moscow.
Britain is most in need of a peace policy. The American "cold war" policy has been hitting Britain hardest of all; it has not affected Russia, and it has not affected other countries so much. It has affected Britain most, for in world markets Britain and America stand out as the main competitors. Britain is of all countries the most vulnerable to war. The harmful effects of the Marshall Plan are already visible: we have a four-year programme—not a plan, but a programme—of austerity; our international trade is already affected by the competition bolstered up in Germany and Japan. In the past week there was a joint deputation of industrialists and trade unionists to protest against the unfair competition from Germany and Japan because of their low wages and poor conditions. The Eastern European trade, which is open to us and upon which our economy could flourish in a large measure, is being strangled by the United States ban on this grain.
141 What we want is a policy for peace, not a policy which lines us up with any warmongering clique in the United States. It is for this reason that I make this plea as sincerely as it is possible to do, following up what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) this afternoon; is it not possible for the Government to take the initiative; to ignore the formalities? It is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister said today, that he has not been involved in or informed officially of these exchanges. But there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister by-passing the normal diplomatic channels, as has been done in the past, and making an approach now. Let him make that approach, suggesting a meeting of the heads of the four States. It was reported in "The Times" that M. Queille was not reluctant to take part in such discussions, and I am sure that if the Prime Minister made such an offer it would be welcomed in France, and of course in many other countries. If Mr. Stalin's offer was merely propaganda the Prime Minister's move would expose it. If, however, as I believe, his offer was genuine, the Prime Minister's move can only lead to an assured peace. I beg the Minister of State to convey these considerations to the Prime Minister if he and, as I hope, the House feel them to be worthy of it.

§ Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)
I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming down here tonight, although I cannot see what part His Majesty's Government can have in the informal approach which has been made by Mr. Stalin to Mr. Truman. This afternoon the Prime Minister very rightly said that he had no official recognition of the fact that this approach had been made, and it seems difficult to see what we in this country can do. However, we are, entitled, as the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has said, to try to assess the worth of this approach.
The hon. Member said that the people of this country sighed with relief. It would be very interesting to find out why they did sigh with relief, if they did so. Did they sigh because Great Britain and the United States during the last three years pursued a policy of territorial expansion? Did they sigh because the Government of Great Britain have been 142 trying to force their will and domination upon small States? Did they sigh because the United States of America are building up huge armed forces to start a fresh war? I do not believe that the people of this country, if they sighed at all, sighed for any of those reasons.
They might sigh because of the great disappointment they felt at what has arisen out of the last World War. They might sigh because one of our Allies has refused to act in a manner which one might expect of an ally after the war had been won. They might sigh because no peace treaties are possible with any of the major combatants. They might sigh because the veto is used on almost every occasion by one Power. They might sigh because of the treatment that has been meted out to hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Europe. They might sigh because the rights of man are trampled down in every country which colleagues of the hon. Gentleman have the opportunity of dominating.
Those are the things for which the people of this country sigh, and rightly so. Everybody in this country, irrespective of party, has a right to make a stand for those liberties for which we fought in the war and for which the people in Western Europe have fought for centuries. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End has threatened us with the growing force of the Soviet Union. He says, "Look how strong we are getting and look how weak you are getting." I do not believe the people of Western Europe are going to be frightened by the threats of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End or of the threats of the followers of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who is sitting beside him. As I see it that is not a true statement of the position. In fact, the position of the Western Powers is getting stronger and the position relatively of Russia and her satellites, including China, is getting weaker.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Did the hon. Gentleman say China?

§ Mr. Shepherd
China has caused a lot of trouble to those who before tried to capture her, and I am quite convinced that, for quite a considerable time, China will be more of a liability than an asset.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Suppose the Chinese people capture their own country, does the hon. Gentleman then say that somehow China will go on giving trouble to the Chinese people?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I should say that, because of the ravages of the war which has been going on for such a long number of years, China will be more of a liability than an asset for some considerable time.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
To the Chinese people? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great advantage to China if the people there at last came into possession of their own country and dispossessed those antique feudal lords, who have held a tight grip on the whole of the landed estates of China? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that even now, the Chinese people have dispossessed these people and that, therefore, China, as it will be tomorrow, will be a greatly improved place for the whole of the Chinese people?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I cannot, of course, answer that hypothetical question, except to say that in those countries in South Eastern Europe, where a similar blessing has been bestowed, the population do not seem as appreciative as the hon. Member for Finsbury thinks they should be.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Is the hon. Gentleman speaking from his own knowledge?

§ Mr. Shepherd
It is not true to say that the people of Western Europe are getting weaker, and that the peoples of Eastern Europe are getting stronger. Rather, is it true to say that the countries of Western Europe are themselves getting stronger, and every month that passes will see a growth of relative strength of the Western Powers. Therefore, we should not at all be influenced by the statement made by the hon. Member for Mile End—that those of us who are in Western Europe should accept this offer, because we are getting weaker and the Soviet Union is getting stronger.

§ Mr. Piratin
I did not say anything of the kind. All I tried to show was that this offer was made at a time when the Soviet Government was not in a position of weakness, but of strength. I did not say that we must accept it because that 144 was the case. I merely said that we should acknowledge that to be the case, and have regard to it.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I do not appreciate the subtlety which the hon. Member displays. All that I am concerned to say is that the growing strength of the Western Powers in every sense, ought not to allow us to say that because of the circumstances we must take advantage of this offer. Let me remind the House that, in the economic sense, great power resides with those who are in the Western Hemisphere. Russia and her satellites are starved of essential capital goods. Their tongues are hanging out for capital goods and they have to turn, to this country and the United States for all the essential capital goods they need. It is ridiculous in those circumstances to talk about the strength of Eastern Europe. We all know that all those countries behind the iron curtain are having an extraordinarily difficult time not only politically, but economically. We see constant disturbances. We heard of the arrest of 1,000 Poles a short time ago. In Hungary and in Czechoslovakia the same thing is happening. Those countries are all dependent for the development of their economy upon the powerful Western economy, in particular of the United States and Great Britain. Let us have none of this nonsense about the East being powerful and the West impotent. The truth is that the West is very powerful indeed.
In those circumstances this country ought to have no truck at all with any suggestions or ideas put forth unofficially by Mr. Stalin. Not long before the war Hitler was always putting forward suggestions of this kind. He said that he had no more territorial ambitions and that what he wanted was peace with the world, yet on that very day he was actually concerned with drawing up plans for a future war. We should be very ill-advised, in the light of all the evidence to the contrary, to place too much value upon these statements. We have established since the war adequate machinery to deal with all the representations that need to be dealt with. However much we may be critical of the Foreign Secretary, he has shown a desire to co-operate with the Soviet Union. We have shown a tolerance which is exemplary; many 145 people believe that it has been too tolerant. We have shown that we are prepared even to depart from bargains to our advantage in order to get some sort of solution, yet all the time we have been shown and a boorish truculence by the Soviet Union.
As one who does not like war any more than any other hon. Member I say that if we are to save civilization—and we are concerned now with the saving of civilisation because wherever the Soviet Union gains dominance there is nothing left of what we believe to be civilization—it can be done only by standing up for the ideals in which we believe and saying that we demand from those who treat with us a certain standard of honesty in their conduct, a recognition of what the world has grown up to believe to be right and a recognition of those rights of man on which the whole of civilisation is founded. If anybody, including the hon. Gentleman opposite, tries to trample on those rights we must resist. We must make clear the ideological position in which we stand and must say that we are not a poor nation, incapable of making an effort.
We have behind us not merely the small people of the world, but the might and greatness of the world and we are prepared to treat with anybody, including Mr. Stalin, with sincerity and with every desire to help him if need be in overcoming his present economic difficulties; but we demand some sort of sincerity. Mr. Stalin can demonstrate his sincerity at the present time by calling off the blockade of Berlin and saying that he will not use the veto as he has hitherto done and that he will relinquish territory which he has achieved by force or semi-force. If he does that, there is not a man or woman in this country who would not welcome the outcome, because we do not want war in any circumstances, but there are very few people in this House and outside who are prepared to accept peace at the price of appeasement, especially when we know from experiences during the past few years what appeasement will mean for the nations of Europe.

§ Mrs. Corbet (Camberwell, North-West)
After the speech of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd), it is difficult for me to add anything.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Hear, hear.

§ Mrs. Corbet
For the benefit of the House, he has put forward sentiments which I share very fully. I did not want to have such sentiments. In fact, I was predisposed entirely the other way. In 1945, I shared with the majority of the people of this country an immense gratitude for the help which the Soviet Union had rendered us in the fight against Hitler and I was prepared to believe that the Soviet Union meant what she said about making the world secure for peace in the future. It is with very great reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that the Soviet Union did not mean what she said.
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has talked about this so-called offer of Stalin being regarded as a propaganda manoeuvre. If that is so, it is surely not the first time that we have had reason to regard actions and sayings of the Soviet Union as propaganda manoeuvres. While I was in Paris for the United Nations Assembly which was held from September to December last year it was very forcibly brought home to me that the speeches which were churned out again and again, were the same old speeches and that they could be made for no other reason than for propaganda—for there was no logic in them and no attempt to argue the reasoned statements put up by other nations. It was the same kind of thing to which we have listened tonight from the hon. Member for Mile End. We could go all over the country and hear that same speech churned out at various meetings in precisely the same terms. I am sorry that it should be so because for us the securing of peace is a serious matter. We regard with loathing the fact that something which is so dear to the hearts of all the peoples of the world should be made the subject of mere propaganda speeches in favour of a certain system of society with which a great many people in the world most emphatically disagree.
Sir, if you had listened, as I listened at Paris, to the attacks made on this country, gratuitous attacks that took no account of the fact that even though at one time we may not have been so fortunate in our Government as we are at the moment and that, though we may have been culpable to some degree, this country is doing its utmost to achieve 147 for the peoples under its rule everywhere the best standard of life it is possible and practicable——

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
What, in the Colonies?

§ Mrs. Corbet
Yes. I listened to attacks made on the British rule of the Colonies at this day when we know that this Government is doing its utmost to deal with the many tremendous problems that the Colonies are bound to bring to us. I listened to such attacks and realised that we were being attacked because we were one of the few nations that dared to give the United Nations the facts about our rule in the Colonies so that they could be talked about. I remember at the same time, that the very information and statistics which we were prepared to give to the United Nations were withheld from us deliberately by the Soviet Union and the countries allied with her. I had to listen to that, and I had to hear the words "murderers," "traitors" and "assassins" used by the Soviet delegates in regard to any witness we were able to bring to give evidence in respect of conditions obtaining in Soviet Russia.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Is my hon. Friend really saying that the world is not fully informed as to the state of affairs in those countries who are now equal partners in the United Nations?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is adducing an argument. He has made about four speeches since I have been in the Chair by way of interruption. If he wants to be called, he had better listen to the speeches and then make his own comments later on.

§ Mrs. Corbet
If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) has any doubt about the kind of language used at the United Nations by the Soviet delegates he had better look up the records.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
It is the facts, not the language I am querying.

§ Mrs. Corbet
I know that many of the witnesses whose evidence we had occasion to use, whose names we could not always disclose because they had relatives in the countries concerned and would be afraid for the safety of their families—those quite credible, decent witnesses were simply labelled in the mass by the Soviet 148 delegates as murderers, assassins and traitors for the reason that in the eyes of the Soviet anybody who dares to leave the country is a traitor. It would be interesting to know why the Soviet delegate subscribed to the Article on the Declaration of Human Rights, which says that everyone has the right to leave his country, in view of the attitude we know they have taken up regarding the Soviet wives of British citizens in this country.

§ Mr. Piratin
Would the hon. Lady ask herself the question why this Government subscribed to the principle of equal pay for equal work and does not keep to it?

§ Mrs. Corbet
I am not asking this Government at the moment——

§ Mr. Piratin
I hope she will come to it in due course.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Did the hon. Lady herself subscribe to the Article which abolished slavery?

§ Mrs. Corbet
I do not think I need go into that, but is it likely that this country would refuse to subscribe to an Article which abolished slavery? No. The fact of the matter was that the Article already abolished slavery, and the Soviet delegate was not satisfied with it but wanted absolutely to prohibit slavery.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
I beg pardon. That is quite right.

§ Mrs. Corbet
I did not see the difference between the two things. There is much more I can say about the attitude of the Soviet delegates to the Declaration of Human Rights. It became quite clear that one thing they did not want was to have that Declaration passed through the Assembly at all. After experiencing the tactics of Communists in this country, as well as everywhere else, we witnessed their skilful methods of manipulating democratic procedure to hold up proceedings so that the Declaration of Human Rights, that should have passed through the committee in two or three weeks, took nearly eleven weeks to get through. The Soviet delegates always wanted the last word, irrespective of how many speeches they had made, showing a complete lack of sportsmanship in the whole business.
At the very end, at three o'clock one morning, when we were rather hopeful 149 of getting the Declaration through, their final manoeuvre was to put forward a motion to the effect that the whole thing should be postponed for another year. Fortunately, however, we thought that the Declaration of Human Rights was worth getting through the Assembly this year, even if the Soviet delegates did not think so. What is quite evident, if one goes out to the United Nations, is that there is no intention on the part of the Soviet Union to co-operate. I am exceedingly sorry that that is so. I wish they could realise how much better it would be for the world if they could remove from our minds the fear and menace of a possible future war.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Bucklow has said, that, so far from Communism being stronger than before, it is, in fact, weaker that it has ever been. I cannot imagine that the Soviet Union would have embarked upon their Berlin embargo if they had realised it would be defeated by the air-lift. They cannot have considered what would be the strength of the Western Powers in that respect. They cannot really have thought that the Western Powers could get together, resolved to secure military co-ordination and, within a limited sphere, that complete military security which we had hoped would have been possible within the sphere of the whole of the United Nations. I think they are feeling exceedingly anxious about what will come out of the North Atlantic Pact, the making of which I contemplate with the greatest relief. At last we shall have something with which we can answer the Soviet Union when they try to repeat the aggressive tactics that Hitler made only too familiar to the world.
I am glad that the world is learning to listen, and I hope that we shall not take notice of such an unofficial procedure as has been reported to us in the Press and which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) desires us to take seriously. I would merely repeat what the hon. Member for Bucklow has already said. If the Soviet Union is desirous of co-operating, the machinery for doing so is open to it. For nearly four years there has been the opportunity for them to co-operate with the rest of the world in securing peace, disarmament and the control of atomic energy, and for doing all those things which are so dear to 150 us all and which are so necessary to the peace of the world.
Let me repeat: Let them but make a practical gesture, let them but lift the Berlin embargo, let them but withdraw the support given to the rebels in Greece, let but those nations of the earth now troubled by Communism be restored to peace by the command of the Soviet Union, and then we can say with great sights of relief, "Ah, she really means it; Russia is coming in to co-operate." Then, indeed, we shall be pleased to cooperate with her, as we have shown all along is our sincere desire and our firm conviction.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury)
Let me take as my text the hon. Lady's words "Ah, she really means it," and develop it at once by saying that I cannot believe that the hon. Lady really meant what she has been saying about the Soviet Union. It is astonishing to all of us to see North-West Camberwell and Bucklow emerging together on this issue. It is astonishing to see the extreme right wing of the Tory Party absolutely at one with those few amongst our back benchers who support the Front Bench on the Labour side. That is something of a revelation.
As this Adjournment Debate has ranged wide, I think it is time to return to the point that was opened up by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) when he begged the Prime Minister to take the opportunity that was offered to him by this new development. This kind of opportunity will not necessarily go on recurring for ever. It has, in fact, occurred more than once in the past. After all, it was the Soviet Union which said, "Let us now discuss and plan and agree to slash all world armaments by one-third." It was greeted, of course, with derision by the Government and by some hon. Members in this House. Let us, however, study that argument. If we have a cut by one-third—unless, of course, one had only three men and could not retain a workable unit—no one would suffer by the cuts and the moral victory for the countries of the world by means of such a cut cannot be over-estimated. But the proposal was received with derisive laughter from Bucklow and other backward areas and from the Front Bench.
151 Again, it was advanced that it was propaganda, but what is the explanation of that? Of course, the explanation is that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) is on the side of those who want war—the great imperialist powers of the world, who want war—and they laugh at the notion of anyone else asking for armaments to be cut at such a time. They are the people of the world who hold the atom bomb and are multiplying it, brandishing it and threatening other people with it, and whose statesmen and leaders are planning where the blow will strike and openly declaring their intentions——

§ Mr. Shepherd
The hon. Gentleman says we laugh at the suggestion for reducing armaments, but would he not agree that, if we are seriously to consider the proposition, we have to know what are the armaments of the countries who are going to be signatories to the agreement? The hon. Gentleman knows our armaments; will he tell us the strength of the Soviet Army at the time the offer was made?

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Can we have anything more nonsensical? It is quite possible, since the representatives of the countries interested in disarmament would come together to discuss the problem, that they would have to go into this matter, and the Soviet authorities say, in reply to the kind of question which the hon. Gentleman asks, that they would certainly disclose their military forces when such matters were going to be raised. The question is put to me whether, since I know what our Forces are, I can state the strength of the Soviet Forces. Thank heaven, I do not know what ours are; if I did, I might be more apprehensive than I am.
Those who have adopted the point of view of the hon. Member for Bucklow and of the Front Benches on either side of the House, now frankly admit that they have no information of the Soviet Forces. It has been suggested by indirect inference that the Soviet Forces are very high. The propaganda media of the world have taken up the cry that the Soviets are rearming, but not a shred of evidence can be produced to show that the Soviets have, in fact, turned to rearmament, or that they have substantially altered the ratio of their men under arms to civilians 152 in recent months or, indeed, in recent years.

§ Mrs. Corbet
That is what we said. They have not altered their ratio. They have not disarmed as they should have done.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Let me give a simple example about which the Prime Minister knows. When he went to Potsdam before the Eastern war was over, the Soviet Union had substantially disbanded the basis of its first line troops. This was exemplified at Potsdam in a simple way, which many of us have in mind. There the three Powers produced armed guards to do honour to the statesmen attending the Conference. The American Army appeared with their wonderful tanks, all done up to the nines with their smart white helmets. The Desert Rats appeared done up with far more blanco than was modest, smart as could be in their Sherman tanks. I know not which Guards division of tanks represented the Soviet Army, but there was not a single armoured car among them. They had all gone back to the Soviet Union. They had only a few cars which they had taken from the Germans. They had already disbanded the front line forces. The best men being in the forces, they had to go back and get on with the job of social reconstruction. Not only has there been immense demobilisation in the Soviet Union, but the whole atmosphere of war has disappeared. It has not disappeared in this country. If one goes to our northern main line stations, one gets the impression from the number of troops on the move that the war atmosphere is reappearing. The stations begin to look quite warlike again.
I now turn back to the burden of my speech which was to point out that these proposals from the Soviet Union had been rebuffed by us. Now, comparable proposals have come from the other side, or rather from one source—from Mr. Truman just before the election there. We must assume that he meant these gestures to be gestures of peace. He proposed, first of all, through Bedell Smith, a direct approach to Stalin. That was rebuffed—not by the Soviet authorities, to the horror of the people of the world. When the gestures of Mr. Truman and Mr. Bedell Smith were made, a sigh of relief arose from the representatives of 153 the people of the whole world, but it was stifled by the acts of those in authority in America and in this country who declined to permit those gestures to be acted upon. It is conceivable that President Truman did not want it to be acted upon, but perhaps I ought not to make that suggestion.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
I do not want to detain the House or prevent my right hon. Friend from replying, but perhaps I might be allowed to take a moment longer. Mr. Marshall, who was probably responsible for preventing those overtures which came from the United States becoming effective, has gone from the scene. That should lift a burden from the hearts of the world, and it allows my right hon. Friend a wonderful opportunity of cashing in, if he wishes, as has been suggested in the Debate.
The cry that is raised against the proposal is that the Soviet Union are threatening the world. That was stated by the two previous speakers. It was stated boldly by my right hon. Friend this afternoon in reply to my Question asking whether the Soviet Union could be invited to join in the proposed North Atlantic Pact. I would like any hon. Member to indicate a single shred of evidence to show that the Soviet Union are threatening anybody. Where is the proof of the kind of thing that is common form throughout the United States of America and in the headlines of certain capitalist newspapers in our country? Where is the evidence of the romantic planning of war moves that is common form to statesmen—even certain responsible statesmen—publicists and warriors alike in our country, not to say certain Archbishops as well?
I suggest that this is quite a relevant consideration. People cannot be brought to the point of joining in a war unless they are prepared for it. I was horrified to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) make some comparison with Hitlerite aggression. Where have the Russian armies marched in? What is the nature 154 of this aggression that occupies foreign countries without soldiers? I speak of countries of Eastern Europe which are renowned for the power of their people in resistance in guerrilla movements and the like, as we all know from the last war. It is said that such countries are occupied without soldiers and that the people in those countries make no attempt to resist.

§ Mrs. Corbet
They are police States.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The cry goes up "police States." Cannot the people resist? These are not police States in any sense of the term. I would ask those who have not been to see the Soviet Union and who would not make a gesture of friendship towards that country or towards Eastern Europe, what is their evidence that these countries are run in such a way?

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
We cannot get there.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The hon. Member says, "We cannot get there, and therefore we assume they are police States."

§ Mr. Shepherd
Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that I have twice been refused admission to the Soviet Union and yet he is received there with open arms? If there is something to be seen there which would be to the advantage of the Soviet Union, why do they seek to keep me and other hon. Members on this side and on the other side of the House from entering?

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive any imputations which arise from my answer, but it was he who asked me the question. I gladly give the answer, because I am sure I know it. Let us remember that before the war the Soviet Union would not only have willingly invited the hon. Gentleman but would have in part financed his tour. They were longing for visitors to go. They were boasting of their achievements. They are equally proud today. If the hon. Gentleman would read the most recent report from the U.N.O. office of statistics he will see that the vast increase in world production last year was primarily due to the increased production of the Soviet Union. He who bothers to run and read, can read it as he runs. It is so obvious. Most people who limit themselves to the capitalist Press run, but do not read it. 155 They do not get a chance to read it, either running or sitting still.
What is the difference today? By contrast the hon. Member could go to Poland or to Czechoslovakia, and the airlift to Czechoslovakia is much quicker and much easier than the air-lift to Berlin. The hon. Member could be there tomorrow and he would be welcomed and shown the whole country. What is the difference? It is this: under the stress of war and under the threat of war from capitalist countries surrounding her, the Soviet Union is now embarking on industrial expansion which exceeds anything in the sphere of development the world has ever known before. Taking the highest technique of the old capitalist countries production has expanded in a remarkable way. They know that those whose voice is represented in this House by the hon. Member for Bucklow, and those holding the atomic bomb and who want to use it, have not the maps to guide their weapons. What is more, President Truman's advisers quite frankly say: "Our trouble is that we just have not got the maps." They have said that publicly, as shown in, the reports of their officials, their technical advisers, dealing with the Marshall Plan. They said their trouble was to get maps to use in approaching the Soviet Union.

§ Mr. S. N. Evans (Wednesbury)
Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to intervene because I am rather interested in this. Have they shifted Moscow?

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Some right hon. Gentleman might say that, but of course no country puts all its eggs in one basket. Moscow, great as it is, wonderfully attractive city as it is—and one can easily go there if one makes oneself known as a person who wants world peace and co-operation between the great countries—is not now the central point, the focus, the centre of gravity of Soviet industry.
I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Bucklow would be one of those willing to assist the Americans to get these maps, but how are the Russians to know that, bearing in mind the kind of utterance we have heard from him today? If we were they and the hon. Gentleman for Bucklow were some- 156 one else, having heard his speech we would have said "Cross him off for the next few years until we know the atom bomb has been de-militarised." I am quite positive that insecurity, fear of the threat of the brandished atom bomb, is the reason why the hon. Gentleman for Bucklow and conceivably some right hon. Gentlemen could not go to the Soviet Union today. I make the contrast sharply, as I have made it already, between Russia and Czechoslovakia, where the Skoda works and the Bruno works are known to every American who flew over Europe so that there is no point in trying to create confusion over their whereabouts.

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the reason why I am not admitted to the Soviet Union is because I might draw a map? I can assure him if I did draw a map it would be so bad that it would be a disaster for anyone using it.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
If the hon. Member for Bucklow explains that, maybe it will make a difference. Can he suggest any other reason why there should be this profound change from the days before the last war to today? He cannot deny the foundations of my argument.
I should like to develop some answers to questions raised by my hon. Friends, but I think I will limit myself to answering only one point, that raised by the hon. Lady the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet). It is true that people in Western Europe are completely uninformed about the Soviet Union. I should be the last to suggest that the standard of living of the people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union compares with the West. Of course it does not. But there is no doubt that if we go forward without planning, without any attempt at the socialisation of our country, as we are at present, they will soon catch up with us, and the report of the immense increase in their production, shows precisely that.
Why did they obstruct the Declaration of Human Rights? Because every time, in every act of international relationship in which they join, they insist that things shall have teeth. The Prime Minister denounced the present Human Rights document and agreement as being simply a pious hope. The Soviet Union wants to 157 include in any international agreement on human rights, things which in the Eastern countries of Europe and the Soviet Union are now axiomatic—not merely a right to vote and to have a member of parliament, to have a white knight in armour to represent them, but the right to work, the guaranteed right to work, the right to equal pay for women, the right to leisure. It is because we do not guarantee these, that we cannot get Soviet agreement to a mere pious wish.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)
I should, of course, want to admit that in the view of the Government there is no subject more important than this one which we started to discuss tonight. In that sense we are indebted to the offer made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). However, my difficulty is that in attempting to address myself to a question of this complexity and of these dimensions I find myself admitting immediately—not only here, but in any place where I have been asked to speak on the subject—that there is a Soviet point of view, that there are reasons why they are edgey and cautious, that there are claims which they may reasonably offer to any international gathering.
However, I am no match in this business for the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) and the hon. Member for Mile End. I think, perhaps, I should address myself to the hon. Member for Finsbury rather than to the hon. Member for Mile End. He brings to this subject a self-righteousness, a self-confidence and an intellectual arrogance without parallel. I was very interested when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) to protest that she had voted against the prohibition of slavery. It is true that a second later he withdrew it; but it was no accident that the hon. Gentleman made that interruption—not an accident at all. I have had exactly the same claim made soberly in a committee room of the United Nations.
It will be within the recollection of the House that in our old League of Nations Convention we used to have an accession clause. We did so because it was proper that the Government of this country should consult the governments of our dependent territories, with their varying 158 degrees of autonomy. Until just after the war there was never any objection to that. It was granted automatically. Since then, in our time, whenever a convention has been offered, we have made our usual reservation, with which many other countries associate themselves, asking that we should be permitted an accession clause.
We are met with the Soviet reply, which is a piece of propaganda ground out like sausages. It is seriously said by Mr. Vyshinsky, for example, that the reason why we asked that the accession clause should be inserted into the convention prohibiting the traffic in women and children, and obscene and pornographic literature was that we were actually indulging in proceedings of that kind in our Colonies. But everyone knew perfectly well that the Press, travellers, authors, photographers, visitors, have frequent access to our Colonies. No one produced a shred of evidence, but it was good propaganda. It was not meant to impress us. It would not impress this House. It was churned out by steady repetition, and directed to the places where they wanted to put it. The great tragedy about the distinguished Gentlemen, the hon. Members for Mile End and Finsbury is that they have become the victims of their own propaganda. I suggest that they should go home and read again the sad story of Lot's wife. They are, intellectually, pillars of salt.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would develop his argument and say whether we still have slavery in the Empire.

Mr. McNeil
That is a very good example of exactly the point I was making. The conditions in our Colonies are not perfect. We have admitted that again and again, but let us once make that admission and for propaganda purposes the Colonies are peopled only by slaves, they are run by slave drivers and the whip is the only kind of instrument that we employ.
On the question of maps, I remember Mr. Vyshinsky discussing the question of atomic energy at one of the first meetings of the United Nations and stating that we already had the maps and that they were issued by a United States oil firm. And now we are 159 told that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) may only be able to go to Moscow because he is poor at drawing maps. Am I to understand that the reason why the Soviet wives are not permitted to leave Moscow is because they can all draw good maps? What nonsense.
Let me give another and more relevant example. The hon. Member for Mile End fell into one of his own traps, too. He said that what Marshal Stalin had offered was a settlement on Berlin on the condition that there was a return to Four-Power co-operation. I thought that I was familiar with the subject, and I did not like to interrupt the hon. Member because I thought that he had prepared his piece. But sometimes one gets into trouble when one prepares one's case only from one newspaper. That was not what was said in the questionnaire, at all. The news agency put the question: If the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France agreed to postpone the establishment of a separate Western German state pending a meeting, of the Council of Foreign Ministers to consider the German problem as a whole, would the Government of the U.S.S.R. be prepared to remove the restrictions which the Soviet authorities have imposed on communications between Berlin and the Western zones of Germany. One would think that that in itself was a fairly conditional inquiry, but the answer goes further and says: Provided the United States of America, Great Britain and France observe the conditions set forth in the third question, the Soviet Government sees no obstacle to lifting the transport restrictions on the understanding, however, that transport and trade restrictions introduced by the three Powers should be lifted simultaneously. That can hardly be described as a spontaneous and generous offer to end the Berlin situation provided there is agreement to restore Four-Power control of that city. Moreover it disposes, I think, of one thing. To the best of my recollection the reason for the blockade of Berlin arose initially, as we were told, on technical difficulties. There is mention here of Western Government, of the Council of Foreign Ministers, of currency, of trade, of blockades, but there is no mention of the technical difficulties in that question, which was the initial reason given to us over the Berlin situation.
160 Despite the provocation offered, I do not want to plunge myself into such an extravagant reply as the presentation of this case almost taunts me to make. It is not very clear what should be the rôle of His Majesty's Government in this situation; but it is quite certain that if we are to make a just assessment of this new development, the House will have to answer at least three most obvious questions which any intelligent person will ask himself about the subject, but to none of which the hon. Members for Mile End and Finsbury addressed themselves, although I should admit that the hon. Member for Finsbury did so partially.
First, we must ask ourselves why, if this offer were meant as a positive contribution towards diplomatic proceedings, towards relieving tension, and towards creating conditions of peace, this strange device was chosen by which probably half the world knew about the invitation before the President of the United States, to whom it was directed, had himself received it—if indeed he ever received it. I have no doubt that it was brought to his attention by agencies and correspondents; he no doubt read it in the newspapers; but for all we know, he never received the invitation which, we are told, was directed at him.
The hon. Member for Mile End said that this was an informal proceeding and that we should not be put off by its informality. I am very doubtful about that. Is it informal to solicit a questionnaire; to choose this questionnaire as the one to which an answer should be given; to see that it has world-wide circulation; and to have a following-up campaign of publicity and propaganda turned on the next day? That can hardly be called an informal proceeding. There are many adjectives that could be applied. Some people might think it impertinent; some people might think it shrewd; it certainly is an unusual proceeding, but it cannot be called an informal one, as did the hon. Member.
I am afraid that most people will come to the conclusion that, had that invitation been really meant for President Truman, the Soviet Government would have employed the devices which are normally employed in conveying a message from the head of one State to another. The Soviet Government are 161 well equipped for the purpose; their diplomatic machinery is without rival in size, and has among its members distinguished, well-known figures who have access to whichever Member of the Government they want to reach. The Soviet Government have never failed to employ them for that purpose when they wanted to do so.
The second question I imagine people will want to ask is on the peculiar timing of the message. It was not done by accident. We know that by the follow-up. We know that many questionnaires of this kind are submitted: that is almost the normal practice in Moscow. This one was selected at a particular time. Why was it selected? The probable reason—the only reason that looks obvious—is because the critical and important negotiations dealing with the Atlantic Pact were getting to a well-shaped, well-defined point where we could hope for success. If may even be that the Soviet's small, valiant, honest, forthright neighbour Norway was moving up to take a decision upon this same subject. But it certainly looks as if it must be related to the Atlantic Pact.
The hon. Member for Mile End says that the Atlantic Pact is an illegal proceeding. Let me quote a sentence from Article 52 of the United Nations Charter: Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action. That is plain enough. Moreover, if authority in international dealings is required, it is abundantly provided by the organisation which has taken place between the Soviet Union and other countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. McNeil
I am sorry, but I want to make one more point. I cannot see any further reason why it was done unless it was designed to improve the morale of some of the Eastern European countries. The other two possible reasons as I have said were Norway and the near conclusion of the Atlantic Pact.
The third question to ask, of course, is why it was directed exclusively to President Truman. I think it plain that neither the United States nor President Truman have ever made any claim that 162 there were international subjects in their exclusive possession. One must ask oneself what subjects, which might be interpreted as being a danger to international peace, lie exclusively between the United States and Soviet Russia. It is not Berlin. That subject is on the agenda of the United Nations. A solution was offered for Berlin to which only the Soviet Union with her veto and one other Power objected. It is not a treaty with Germany. Provision is already made for that. It is not the Japanese treaty, because provision is made for that, too. As with the German treaty, the major Powers have the greatest say, but we have insisted that other countries, including our own Commonwealth countries and Burma, who played such a major part in the Japanese war, should be consulted.
It could not have been Berlin, nor the German or Japanese treaties. It could not have been disarmament because it is on the agenda of the United Nations and the machinery is there ready to function. It could not have been atomic energy, because the machinery is there also. All that is needed to go into action on any of these matters is a single word from the Soviet Union that she is prepared to stop the obstructionist attitude of the past two years, and these two important commissions will start immediately. It is a nasty thought to think, but it may be that it was to display to some of the small Powers which are our friends and allies, that the Soviet Union and the United States were masters of the world. I hope that is wrong, because it is inaccurate.
There is one other thing I want to say. It was not any consolation to the small countries and to such peace-loving people as ourselves to indicate that the United States and the Soviet Union could find a peace basis. Such a basis was already announced long ago in most solemn terms in these words: All members shall refrain in their international relation from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. That is an article of the U.N. Charter to which the Soviet Union as well as our-selves have subscribed. That remains the policy of His Majesty's Government. There have been no lack of meetings. 163 They have been endless in the last three years. What is lacking is an indication to co-operate, to see the other person's point of view, a willingness to end all the barriers, physical and diplomatic. Whatever the Soviet Union wants that she will publish, but she does not need to publish this. She can give the slightest indication to the tiniest sub-committee of 164 the United Nations and the Council of Foreign Ministers when she wants so to do, and she can do it by the abundant diplomatic machinery available for the purpose.