§ 56 and 57. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what was the purpose of Her Majesty's Ambassador's action in Washington on 6th February, when he drew the attention of the State Department to allegations in the United States Press that the formulation of plans to meet the contingency of another so-called Berlin blockade was being impeded by British objections to the use of land forces;
(2) why Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington informed the State Department on 6th February that his Embassy had, early in January, endorsed a French proposal for a detailed discussion by military experts of practical measures to meet contingencies in Berlin, and that a senior and fully qualified British officer had come to Washington and waited ten days for the purpose.
§ Mr. R. AllanHer Majesty's Ambassador's object was to draw attention to speculative Press reports about secret talks which inaccurately represented the British attitude.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIs not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that, according to The Times of 7th February, the Ambassador gave an interview to the American Press in which he specifically said that the Government wanted to have these military discussions as soon as possible to work out a scheme to meet contingencies? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will in no circumstances resort to direct action by land or air to establish communications with Berlin in preference to working with East German officials who replace their Soviet colleagues?
§ Mr. AllanIt would be most unwise to speculate about developments on the Berlin question at this moment.
§ Mr. PagetIf our military forces and their allies do not concert plans to take action when their rights are infringed, what is the point of having either military forces or allies?
§ 62. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the danger to world peace which is stated in the British Note to the Soviet Government to be inherent in the initiative of the latter in regard to Berlin.
§ Mr. R. AllanHer Majesty's Government have in mind the situation which could arise if the Soviet Government, by refusing to carry out their obligations to the Western Powers regarding Berlin, prejudice the fulfilment by the Western Powers of their obligations to the people of West Berlin.
§ Mr. RankinCan the Minister assure us that in the event of Russia resiling from her responsibilities in Eastern Germany we would not endanger peace by refusing to deal with the East German officials?
§ Mr. AllanThe hon. Member must remember that, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Thursday, we have not only rights to defend but obligations to fulfil to the people of West Berlin.
§ 63. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the appropriate means which the Government in their reply to the Soviet Note on Berlin reserve the right to uphold in order to maintain their communications with Berlin when Soviet frontier and transport officials are replaced by East German officials.
§ Mr. R. AllanThe means which would be appropriate would depend on the situation at the time.
§ Mr. RankinWell, then, once again, does the hon. Gentleman realise that the means can be by air or by land? Will he assure us that neither of those means would be utilised in order to obviate the necessity of meeting East German officials in the event of Russia resigning her responsibilities in Berlin?
§ Mr. AllanThose are all hypothetical questions. I am sorry, but I cannot be drawn by them at this moment.