HC Deb 19 July 1960 vol 627 cc253-62

Accordingly, in addition to the formal Note, the Ambassador delivered a personal letter from me to Mr. Khrushchev in the following terms:

I am sending you separately a formal reply to the Note from the Soviet Government to Her Majesty's Government which was delivered by Mr. Gromyko to Sir Patrick Reilly in Moscow on the 11th of July concerning the shooting down of a United States aircraft. This reply sets out clearly the position of our Government in this matter; but I feel that I must, in addition, write to you personally about my anxieties as to the way in which the world situation is developing.

I would like to remind you of the conversations which we have had from time to time when we have both agreed to seek methods by which the underlying tensions in the world could be reduced. When I had the pleasure of being your guest in Moscow last year I think we succeeded in setting in motion a sequence of developments which appeared to have great promise. My visit to you and the subsequent interchange of visits and frank discussions between the members of the proposed Summit Conference made me hopeful that when we came to the Summit Meeting we would make, if not a spectacular advance, at least some forward movement.

It is not necessary now to go back upon the reasons why the Summit con ference was broken up before it really started. I still feel that it would have been better had you been willing to put other difficulties aside in order to pursue the major purpose for which we were to meet. All acts of intelligence or espionage on either side are, after all, symptoms, not causes, of the world tension which we should both seek to reduce. However, I took some comfort from your statement that when the dust had settled we might be able to take up again the task.

Since then, however, a number of events have occurred which have made me less hopeful. First, the action of the Soviet delegation in leaving the Committee of Ten on Disarmament at a moment when new United States proposals were, with your knowledge, about to be presented. As I told you at the time, I deeply regretted that you should have found it necessary to bring this Conference to an end, in my view prematurely.

Now we have the new incident regarding the United States RB47 flight. Our formal Note, to which I referred in my opening paragraph, gives the reply to the accusations against the United Kingdom in this matter. But I feel I must add that, even if the facts had been as stated by your Government, I do not think the Soviet authorities should have taken so grave an action and one so calculated to turn the incident into a major international dispute.

Then there comes the question of the Congo. I have read the statement which you have distributed which accuses Great Britain, in concert with the United States, France, Belgium and West Germany, of organising a conspiracy to destroy the independent State of Congo. I must ask you, Mr. Khrushchev, whether you really believe such a conspiracy is likely in view of the policies which British Governments of all parties have followed not only since the last war, but for many generations.

For more than a century it has been our purpose to guide our dependent territories towards freedom and independence. Apart from the older independent countries of the Commonwealth, since the Second World War India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya, comprising over 510 millions of people have, with our help, reached the goal of independent life and strength. We have aided this process both by our technical assistance and by generous financial contributions. All these States are completely independent members of our free Commonwealth association.

Nor is this movement at an end. In October this year, Nigeria, with its 35 million people, will be another great independent country. Sierra Leone will become independent in April, 1961. The West Indies Federation is moving rapidly in the same direction. And so the process goes on.

I ask you, Sir, can you really believe that a Government and a people who have pursued these policies so consistently and so honourably are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the new independent State of Congo?

But my purpose in sending you this personal message is not to debate in detail the individual issues which have lately arisen between us. Rather, it is to express to you my deep concern over what now appears to be a new trend in the conduct of Soviet foreign policy.

As I think you will agree, I have consistently welcomed and have given much weight to your assurances of the Soviet Government's desire for peaceful co-existence and detente in international relations. I have shown my sympathy with such purposes. It is, however, my firm opinion that these objectives cannot be successfully pursued without the exercise of patience and restraint. Much of my present anxiety derives from the fact that these elements seem to be absent from recent manifestations of Soviet Government policy.

I write to you now so plainly because I have the memory of our frank discussions with you in my mind. I simply do not understand what your purpose is today.

If the present trend of events in the world continues, we may all of us one day, either by miscalculation or by mischance, find ourselves caught up in a situation from which we cannot escape. I would ask you, therefore, to consider what I have said and to believe that I am writing to you like this because I feel it my duty to do so.

We cannot disguise, and we have never attempted to disguise, the fundamental differences on political, social and economic questions which divide your country and your associates from our country and our Allies. Nevertheless, in the nature of things we are united by the fact that both our people and yours want to live their lives in peace and to build something better for their successors. I have always hoped that if we could have followed the path which we seemed at one time to agree upon we could have made progress to this end.

That concludes my communication, issued this morning. I would only add that I hope that the House will feel that this statement does represent the general feeling in this country. We are not to be separated from our Allies by threats nor unduly worried by propaganda. At the same time, we have a deep desire to see the present tension in the world relaxed. But if this is to be done all sides must co-operate to minimise, and not magnify, incidents which must Inevitably arise in the present sad state of the world.

Mr. Gaitskell

I feel confident that the House as a whole, and the country generally, will warmly welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. I think that he was right to speak frankly to Mr. Khrushchev about these recent developments in Soviet policy, but I consider that the language he used was reasonable and courteous and I can only hope that Mr. Khrushchev will respond in the same spirit. I feel, as Leader of the Opposition, that I should make it plain that I think that the country as a whole agrees entirely, particularly with the concluding paragraphs, with the Prime Minister's statement.

At the same time, I would like to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions. Would he not perhaps also consider—and I do not expect a detailed answer now, of course—what positive contributions we in particular, and the West in general, might make towards easing the situation! Would he consider, for instance, intimating to the Soviet Government that we are not in any way opposed to the proposal that they made that China and India should be invited to take part in any future top-level discussions?

Secondly, on the earlier part of the statement, regarding the RB47 aircraft, while in no way condoning the shooting down of the American aircraft over the open sea, if, indeed, that is what occurred, may I ask whether it is really wise that American aircraft, or, for that matter, British or Allied aircraft, should fly so near to the Soviet frontier? Would we really feel completely undisturbed if Russian aircraft were spotted 30 miles off the British coast? Would the American Government be so indifferent if a Russian plane were observed 30 miles from the coastline of the United States? In all honesty, I am bound to say that I think that both Britain and America would be deeply worried by an event of that kind.

May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statement of the United States Air Force Chief of Staff that American bombers are sent near Russian radar screens not only to keep the Russians aware that the United States Air Force is continuously taking full precautions to counter Soviet preparations for war, but to keep Britain and the other allies in good heart by actively demonstrating that the United States deterrent force is always on the alert? Would it not perhaps be a good idea to intimate to the United States Government that we really do not need any encouragement of that particular kind`?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said, and for the spirit in which he met what I felt was at least some attempt to break through the situation which has developed and is developing. I will, of course, consider the special points that he has made.

With regard to what one might call reconnaissance of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman probably knows the major purpose for which it is carried on, of course by both sides. It is the fact that these flights are carried on by both sides; by the Soviet Government as well as by ourselves. In addition, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Soviet trawler fleets are constantly at sea in close proximity to our territorial waters, and are fitted with electronic and technical equipment for the purpose of testing the radar and intercepting radio transmissions. They are always patrolling where British or N.A.T.O. naval exercises are taking place. If, by some international agreement, we could reduce this, that would be another thing, but I honestly feel that until that happens we must protect the efficacy of the only methods we have of defence by all legitimate means.

On the other wide issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised, of course I will consider what he said, and I would only like to thank him and the House generally—the matter has given me great concern—for the reception of what I hope might be of some value, but, at any rate, will perhaps help to make us feel more conscious of the part that we have tried to play together with our allies.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

In view of the admirable terms of my right hon. Friend's letter to Mr. Khrushchev, is there not a possibility that the Royal Air Force, which, under my right hon. Friend's wise guidance, would be more responsive to the diplomatic situation, could take over from the United States the rôle of aerial reconnaissance?

The Prime Minister

No. The Royal Air Force is the finest air force in the world, but I will not accept, and do not accept, these criticisms of our allies. We must be very careful on the position that we take, and I would like to emphasise the words that I used at the end of my statement when I said, and I believe it to be true: We are not to be separated from our Allies by threats… We will work with them, and together, for any purpose which might be helpful in this situation.

Mr. Mason

Is it not a fact that provocative flights these days need not be overflights, in view of the development of side-screening radar photography whereby aircraft can fly along a frontier and take photographs many miles inside alien territory? Is it not a fact that these flights themselves are provocative though not violating national air space? Will the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Americans that these provocative flights should continue, and whether the Royal Air Force has been responsible for this type of reconnaissance? Further, can he give instances of whether the Russians have been guilty of this type of flight?

The Prime Minister

These flights and these movements by sea are perfectly legal under international law. I would not say that they are provocative; they are intensely annoying. We rather dislike seeing the trawlers hanging about to see what they can pick up of our methods, but they are legal, and, under international law, we have no right to drive them away or arrest them, and certainly not to sink them. Whether we can reach another step together for the reduction of this is a matter that must have regard to international, legal and technical points of view.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Earlier the Prime Minister referred to American flight plans being given to the Royal Air Force for the purpose of security in leaving and entering British territorial space. Could not a closer liaison be brought about between our allies and the Royal Air Force by having more senior liaison officers, and the British authorities being brought more into the picture to ensure that there is no misunderstanding?

The Prime Minister

In considering whether we can improve our methods, when these programmes are agreed I will consider whether there should be more detailed and more senior control.

Mr. Grimond

Was the Prime Minister's letter agreed generally with our allies, and is it a prelude to a new Western move to reopen negotiations with the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister

No. It was delivered in Moscow this morning, to be released at half-past three. I informed our principal allies and Commonwealth Prime Ministers about it, and sent them copies of what I proposed to do.

Mr. Healey

In his statement the Prime Minister made a distinction which I think everybody in the House regards as of the utmost importance, namely, the distinction between reconnaissance activities which are legal under international agreements, and reconnaissance flights which violate international law, such as the penetration of another country's air space against its will.

Will the Prime Minister try to understand that what I think causes great disquiet not only on this side of the House, but on his side, is that British bases may be used for the violation of international law by reconnaissance flights of the U2 nature without the British Government having the slightest idea of what is going on? This is an issue to which, in spite of everything the Prime Minister said in his Note, we attach the very greatest importance.

The Prime Minister

I quite understand that, but since President Eisenhower has declared that they will no longer take place, I do not think it is of the greatest practical immediate importance, although it is a point to be considered. I must add, I am afraid—and we are all grown-up people here—that a lot of things are done by both countries which are not legal. All espionage is, in a sense, a breach of international law. So far 18 leading agents from the Soviet bloc have been expelled from this country. These things go on.

As I tried to show, I think that they are the symptoms of this tension between the two sides. If we had been more fortunate, and if we are fortunate again in trying to take measures to reduce this tension, I think that activities of that kind fall into a different place. They may continue, as they always have, but they do not have the same alarming and disturbing effect if the state of tension is somehow meanwhile reduced.

Mr. Gaitskell

Without disagreeing with what the Prime Minister said, would he not agree that there is a considerable difference between the more ordinary acts of espionage and air flights which can lead to the very serious dangers of war? Will he follow up the suggestion he made that we might perhaps reach some agreement which would enlarge the distance from the frontiers of the various countries concerned over which air flights would be permissible?

Mr. Paget

The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to the Russians in terms of sweet reason. Can he recall any instance in which that sort of appeal has ever been successful with the Russians? In his letter to Mr. Khrushchev the right hon. Gentleman said that this incident might have had serious consequences. Several of our allies were murdered and others kidnapped, and there have been no serious consequences. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the way to negotiate with the Russians is to let them get away with this, or does he imagine that we can negotiate with them successfully only if they have at least repatriated the men they have kidnapped?

The Prime Minister

I am well aware that in these negotiations there must be a combination of absolute firmness and standing loyally with our allies in every way and never allowing a weakness in our own side, but, at the same time, showing good reason, good sense and a willingness to reach agreement, if it is possible. Nor must we forget that it is not only the Russian Government and people to whom we must direct our attention; it is also our own allies, the many uncommitted countries of the world, and the many neutral countries.

I cannot help feeling that it is sometimes worth rebutting allegations made against us and giving the true story to the independent people of our own Commonwealth and Colonial Territories, set out not only for our own people, who know it, but for the many hundreds of millions of people all over the world who do not always hear our side. Although one is tempted to shrug off propaganda, it is sometimes wise to reply to it, if one can do so with dignity and propriety.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Various questions have been put to the Prime Minister on the assumption that the whole House agrees that his Note should go to Mr. Khrushchev without a similar Note being sent to the President of the United States. Some of us believe that we should have had an opportunity of dissociating ourselves from this action unless a similar open letter is sent to those whom we believe to be the provocateurs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker

It is very difficult to know when questions should cease on occasions of this kind, but the hon. Member will have to bear with my best efforts in the matter—and that includes not permitting him to make a speech on the subject now, because I have no power to do so.