HL Deb 21 November 1951 vol 174 cc404-22

2.40 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate on the international situation, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his appointment as Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office. I think that perhaps the noble Marquess who leads the House and I can understand better than most noble Lords the feeling of satisfaction and pride which the noble Marquess must have experienced when he found himself appointed to the great State Department in which his father served as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I will not say that I hope the noble Marquess's stay there will be a long one, because I suspect that I might be accused by noble Lords on the other side of political insincerity. What I can do is to say that I hope that his tenure of office will be as interesting officially, and as happy personally, as was my own.

The Foreign Secretary since he took over his high office has made two major speeches, both of which we welcome. There was, quite naturally, throughout the world, widespread interest in those first pronouncements of the policy to be pursued by the new Government. For six years, Labour Governments have been responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, and their principles and aims were well known; but with the change of Government there were many, not only in this country but elsewhere also, who wondered whether there would be any important change in British policy. Were we to have what is known as a strong foreign policy, and, if so, what would it involve? It seems that we need no longer wonder or speculate. We now know from the Foreign Secretary's speeches that the basic principles and aims of British policy in world affairs will not undergo any radical or material transformation. I listened to the Foreign Secretary's speech in another place on Monday, and even on Persia it seemed to me that the peaceful settlement which he hopes may be reached and the nature of that settlement correspond closely with what the late Government sought to obtain. I hope I am right in my assessment of Mr. Eden's speeches, and that the policy which he intends to follow will be substantially that to which the Labour Government sought to give effect; for on the basis of such a national policy it should be possible to have broad national unity, which would strengthen his hands in his work for peace.

There is no dispute about the cardinal problem in international affairs being the East-West division of the world. That is the root of most of our international difficulties and tensions. But I think I can say that it was not of our seeking or making. I do not believe that the primary cause of it is to be found in the opposing philosophies of East and West, though that is a factor. We have it on the authority of Premier Stalin that there is no reason why the Communist East and the free West should not be able to exist side by side. That is what we want. If we have doubts whether Premier Stalin means what he has said, it is not because we are endowed with a double dose of original sin; it is because Russia's policies and actions belie his words. We have only to look at some of the causes of the deplorable in- ternational situation: frustration of peaceful progress under the United Nations because of the unreasonable use of the veto by Soviet Russia; war in Korea because of Communist aggression; the delays in getting an Austrian Treaty because of Russian obstruction; the continued denial of unity to Germany because Soviet Russia insists on keeping her iron grip on the Eastern Zone; and the costly and burdensome rearmament programme which the Western Nations have had to shoulder because of the maintenance by Russia of armed forces and armaments far in excess of peace-time requirements. This is only a part of the formidable list that could be cited.

As Mr. Eden said, it is the depth and width of the forbidding chasm that separates East and West, mentally as well as physically, that is so disheartening for the present and so alarming for the future. Somehow or other that chasm has to be bridged, somehow or other the deadlock of minds has to be broken, before we can move into a more promising international climate. The difficulty is to get at the minds of the small group of rulers in Russia who dictate policy and who alone have the power to change or modify it. For that reason I personally have come to the view that it would be a mistake to rule out altogther a meeting at what is called "the highest level." The question of the timing of such a conference, if it were found to be desirable, would obviously require careful thought. I do not imagine that any one of us would regard the immediate future as the right time. I recognise that one of the strong arguments against such a meeting is that it would, like other conferences, involve the risk of failure, and failure in this case might even deepen our anxieties. But if we find that the deadlock between East and West cannot be broken by normal diplomatic and conference methods, would it not be wise to consider whether an effort should not be made to get things moving through a meeting of national leaders?

But the need for such a high-powered effort may not arise. As the defence strength of the West increases, it may enable satisfactory results to be achieved by the method of Foreign Ministers' and other conferences called to deal with definite and limited problems. That is the method which Mr. Eden regards as most promising, on the basis of his formula of "preparation, conference and agreement." That is the traditional and well-tested method of negotiating international settlements, and there is no reason to suppose it would not prove successful in these difficult times were the Soviet Government to participate with the sincere intention of collaborating for genuine agreements. I have faith to believe that if a successful start could be made along those lines on a particular problem, it might prove the beginning of a developing process that would gradually lead us all on to firmer ground. But patience and perseverence are called for. I do not think that any one of us expects any sudden change in Soviet policy or any swift transformation of the present international situation.

The Foreign Secretary has explained in another place the present state of negotiations in Korea for a cease-fire and an armistice. The position seems to be a little more hopeful than it appeared to be a short while ago. Agreement on the military demarcation line has been reached and attention is now being turned to the two questions of supervision and release of war prisoners. If success at this first stage is achieved, there will then be the opportunity to negotiate a peace settlement for Korea itself. Agreement on that would open the way for the third stage, which would be to consider other important political issues in the Far East which will still have to be settled. It would be impossible, I think, to exaggerate the relief that would be felt throughout the world if peace and co-operation were established in this important area, or the beneficial effects it would have on the relations between the Western world and the great continent of Asia. A successful outcome of negotiations on Korea and the Far East might, indeed, open the path to other agreements on problems nearer home. We share in the hope that there will be a successful outcome to the present negotiations, and that the United Nations representatives will do their utmost to assure that successful result.

My Lords, we on these Benches also wholeheartedly welcome the disarmament initiative taken by the three Western Allies. Huge armaments are not only a symptom of international tension; they are also a cause of international tension. I do not think that any of us really regards massive armaments as the best way to ensure peace. I noticed in the Daily Telegraph the other day the following statement: There is no Western Power, least of all this country, which would not be overjoyed to be relieved of the present burden of building up defensive strength. I am convinced that that view is true, and that it represents the feeling of all Parties in Parliament and of the people in the country. And I am sure that it is a matter for national satisfaction that His Majesty's Government have closely identified themselves with this new disarmament initiative.

In the light of post-war experience, there will be general agreement that the linking of conventional with atomic weapons is not only a sensible and constructive proposal but a necessary one if progress is to be made. What is required is a scheme that will be fair to all, will be foolproof, and will deny to all nations alike any possibility of snatching an advantage by evasion. If there is to be real disarmament, there must be confidence both in the plan and in its implementation. Disclosure, verification and control, and the proposal that each stage must be faithfully fulfilled before moving on to the next stage, go a long way to providing these necessary safeguards. The aim is an all-in and an all-fair plan for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and armaments. I feel that the three Governments deserve our thanks and approval for the practical lead that they have given at the United Nations. I hope that they will not relax their efforts to get an agreed scheme. While we must recognise both the political and technical difficulties involved, to get an arms pact would be an outstanding achievement, and one that would make a decisive contribution to the pacification of the world.

We are agreed that in existing conditions we cannot afford to let up on our defence programme. Its economic and social effects are so serious that no reasonable mind could suppose or suspect that we were undertaking it except as an imperative duty. It is a demonstrable consequence of Russia's policies and actions. We shall go on bearing the burden because we must and as long as we must, not for aggression, not for a preventive war, but to prevent war and to enable the British Government to speak and negotiate on a basis of equality with Soviet Russia. We need have no doubt that that is both right and prudent. What is called "the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union," we are told by Mr. Beria, one of the Politbureau rulers of Russia, "is based not on weakness but on strength," and the Soviet Union's "armed forces have all types of the most up-to-date weapons." How, then, can we be accused of evil intentions if we, too, seek to put ourselves in a position of strength, so long as a disarmament plan has not been agreed to and put into operation by all armed and arming Powers?

My Lords, we support the Government in their decision—which was also the decision of the late Government—to stand by the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty until some new arrangement is made for the defence of the Suez Canal and the Middle East area. It is right that the four Powers responsible for the new Middle East defence scheme should proceed with their plan, despite its summary rejection by the Egyptian Government. We are living in an anxious world in which collective defence on a regional basis, entirely in harmony with the principles of the United Nations Charter, has perforce had to be developed. The European and Atlantic Powers have found it necessary to set up the North Atlantic defence community, and the underlying reasons for that are identical with those which have led to the proposal of a Middle East defence organisation. No one in the West wishes or seeks to interfere with the sovereign rights of the Middle East countries, but, in my view, no independent nation which is a loyal member of the United Nations can evade its share of responsibility for the collective maintenance of peace or defence against potential aggression, especially when its own security is at stake.

What has been proposed in the Middle East does not involve the acceptance of any obligation which we and a large number of other independent nations have not already accepted under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If there is to be pooled security, there must be pooled defence. We share the hope that the Egyptian Government will have second thoughts; that they will seriously examine the proposals which have been submitted to them, and that wiser counsels will prevail. As I have said, these pro- posals are consistent with the principles and the basic obligations of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, the action of the Egyptian Government in denouncing unilaterally the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty is contrary to the Charter, and I would add that loyalty to international engagements is in itself an important protection for the smaller Powers. I would also stress that the 1936 Treaty would come to an end with Egyptian acceptance of the Middle East collective defence plan.

The accusation that Britain is actuated by motives of imperialism is completely false. No nation in modern times has clone so much for the attainment of independence by other nations. I hope that Egypt and other Arab States in the Middle East have taken note of the statement made by the Pakistani Foreign Minister last week at the United Nations General Assembly. The words of this distinguished Moslem statesman must surely carry some weight. In the course of his speech Sir Zafrullah Khan pointed to the courageous example of Britain which, he said, had shown a measure of political faith unprecedented in constitutional history in having agreed to the creation of the sovereign States of Pakistan, India, Burma and Ceylon. Arab states in the Middle East will no doubt remember similar helpful action nearer home by this country. There is one hard fact which neither the Egyptians nor the Western nations can afford to ignore. It is certain that, without British help on a massive scale, Egypt would have been overrun and laid waste in the late war, and it is simply illusory to believe that Egypt, which occupies a key position in the Middle East area, could in the reasonably foreseeable future build up and maintain defences which would give her security from a major military aggressor.

That position is not peculiar to Egypt. It applies to other countries which have not hesitated to join in collective defence efforts for their mutual security. No question of derogation of sovereign rights has been involved. I am sure that we all realise what a serious thing it would be if the nations co-operating for the collective defence of the Middle East were faced, not only with a non-co-operative Egypt, but with a hostile Egypt. What we want is a friendly and co-operating Egypt, and I hope that terrorism will be called off and that there may be a resumption of conversations—as there must be sooner or later—which will lead to the willing association of Egypt with her friends and allies for the benefit of the security of the whole Middle East area.

I wish now to say a word about Germany. The German problem is the clearest proof in Europe of the chasm between East and West. There is perhaps no issue upon which an agreed solution would contribute more effectively to easing the present strained situation. In view of the Paris Conference of deputies in the summer—a Conference which proved to be completely abortive—the prospects of an early agreed solution cannot be held to be bright, but there can be no doubt that what the vast majority of the German people, in the East as well as in the West, desire above all else is the unification of their country. They have a passionate longing to be together again as members of one family, living on the basis of unity with freedom. That is a very natural and understandable longing. The enforced division is, in my view, an international wrong as well as a national injustice. But unity will never be brought about so long as Soviet Russia bars the road to unity.

It remains to be seen whether a helpful step in the direction of unity will be taken as a result of the United Nations discussion on the proposal to appoint an international Commission of Investigation to determine whether conditions exist in the Federal Republic, in Berlin and in the Eastern Zone for the holding of free elections. The Federal German Chancellor has declared that the foremost object of the policy of his Government is the restoration of German unity in a free united Europe, and that such unity must come from the free decision of the German people as a whole. That has been one of the aims of the three Western Allies for a long time, and they sought to obtain agreement on it at the meeting of the four Foreign Ministers in Paris in 1949. Their efforts then were in vain, because the Soviet Government would not agree to co-operate. The present proposal would not, of course, bring unity, but it would be an important first step. Whether the Soviet delegate will continue to play according to past form, or whether he will use the opportunity to display a more co-operative attitude remains to be seen. But if agreement can be reached it would be welcomed, not only throughout the whole of Germany, but also throughout Europe.

The object of Western Allied policy towards Germany was stated by the three Western Foreign Ministers after their Conference at Washington last September to be the inclusion of a democratic Germany, on a basis of equality, in the Continental European community, which itself will form part of a constantly developing Atlantic community. They also said that they would instruct their High Commissioners to negotiate mutually acceptable agreements with the Federal Government which would have the effect of completely transforming their relationship with the German Federal republic. Discussions on the European Army have since been going on in Paris, and the results of these discussions will no doubt be reported to the North Atlantic Treaty Council at its meeting in Rome next week.

But at the same time negotiations have been carried on in Bonn on the Treaty which is intended to give Germany equality. I know that there were some difficult and complicated problems to be resolved before the master agreement and the series of contractual documents could be completed. I do not know whether the major agreement has yet reached its final stage, subject to decisions which may be taken at the meeting of the four Foreign Ministers in Paris to-morrow.

It may be that what the Conference is intended to do is to discuss the points upon which agreement has not yet been reached, with a view to the Allied Foreign Ministers giving new instructions to their High Commissioners in the light of agreement on principles in Paris. I do not ask for information at this stage. I wish only to express the hope that the three Western Foreign Ministers will go as far as they can, and as speedily as they can, to bring the negotiations to a point where, to use Mr. Eden's words, we shall have approached a normal peace-time relationship with the Government of Bonn. Part of the decision at the Washington Conference was that the political agreements and the agreement for a German armed contribution to Western defence should come into force simultaneously. So far as I am aware, that is still the intention. If, however, there is to be a long interval between the completion of the political agreements and the signing of the European Army treaty, that would, in my view, be a good reason for reconsidering this part of the Washington decision. Once the political agreements have been completed and signed, to delay their operation for any length of time would, I believe, seriously diminish the value of a most important political development.

I realise, of course, that these are matters on which the British voice is only one of several; but when the Western Allies, rightly, chose a policy of progressive liberalisation towards Western Germany, and rejected the policy of keeping a tight grip on a defeated enemy, they decided that German democracy was worth encouraging and supporting, and that a democratic Germany had a place in the free West. To end the Occupation, to replace the High Commissioners by Ambassadors, to transform in law the Occupation Forces into Western Defence Forces—as, indeed, is already the fact—and to give Federal Germany the status of equal partnership with the West, will be a stroke of enlightened statesmanship. I will add only that we welcome the renewal by His Majesty's Government of the invitation to Doctor Adenauer to visit this country. But for the General Election his visit would already have taken place. I believe that such a visit will have a beneficial effect on the friendly relations and growing understanding which have been developed between the two peoples.

The last point to which I wish to refer is the application of Italy for membership of the United Nations. We are in full agreement with the Government's cordial support of Italy's request. By all accepted tests Italy's rightful place is in the United Nations, and I hope that a favourable decision may be reached at the present session. I go further: I hope that we shall soon see an end to the policy of exclusion of applicants on grounds which are not in harmony with the Charter. I remember that in one of our Foreign Affairs debates—I think it must have been some time last year—the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party, or his distinguished colleague the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke in favour of the universality of the United Nations and deplored the vetoing of nations who wished to become members. I forget how many such States there are but they are a good number, some behind the Iron Curtain and some in the free West. I believe that this exclusion is contrary to the spirit and intentions of the Charter, and that its practical effects are bad. I hope the Foreign Secretary will do all he can to put an end to this policy of exclusion, and that he will stand by the principle of universality, which can be made effective only by dealing with the accession of new members strictly on the basis of the Charter. We want neither exclusions nor horse trading on a matter which should be above disagreement and veto within the world organisation for peace.

My Lords, I realise that there are many problems which have not been touched upon; but I also realise that there are a large number of speakers to follow me. As a member of the Party which believes in fair shares for all, I hope that I shall receive some approval from your Lordships for not taking an undue amount of the time of this debate. I beg to move for Papers.

3.16 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has surveyed the whole field of present-day foreign affairs, as is customary on such occasions by the spokesman of the Opposition Front Bench; and he has done so with admirable concision and brevity. There have been some complaints from one or two quarters during the present Session about the inordinate length of speeches that is now sometimes experienced by your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is one of those who protested, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was another. The best after-dinner speech has been defined as one that is shorter than anyone had even dared to hope. I do not know whether the same test should apply in a speech in a legislative Chamber; but undoubtedly concision is a virtue, and undoubtedly there have been departures from it in your Lordships' House—particularly from the various Front Benches, including my own and in my own person, for I also must plead guilty. Therefore, I do not propose to attempt a complete survey and will deal with only two points.

My text for the first will be a paragraph in the gracious Speech—and this debate is really an extension of the debate on the Address, for we have postponed until to-day any special references to foreign affairs. The gracious Speech said: My Government will faithfully support the United Nations as the World instrument for peace and security. That seems to me to be the essence of the whole matter, and the most important thing of all is to exalt the United Nations as the one hope of securing harmony and the maintenance of peace in the world. But if it is to be a world instrument it must itself be universal; and my first point is identical with the last which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, namely the necessity of completing the membership of the United Nations. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to a speech which I made in your Lordships' House in July of last year, when I stated as fully as I could the arguments in favour of this proposal. I returned to the subject again, when the occasion offered, in September of last year, but I received at that time no support from any other quarter, inside this House or out of it, so far as I can recollect. We may find the first step to a world détente if only all the nations can be brought together to conferences of the United Nations. They could then talk among themselves and fully express their differences; and each one could be called upon, in the full glare of world publicity, to defend any actions that it may take.

At the present time, fourteen States are excluded. Immediately after the ending of the war, when the United Nations was first founded, Spain was excluded from membership, for the reason that the present régime in. Spain had been founded with the support of the Axis Powers, and was still so closely associated with those who had been the aggressor States. Those considerations have passed into the historic background. The Axis has disappeared; its very name is almost forgotten. Surely the time has come when that embargo on Spain should be lifted. In 1947, two years later, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary applied for membership, and they were all excluded by the votes of the Western Powers, for the reason that those countries were not observing the Charter with respect to human rights. In reprisal, the Soviet vetoed the admission of Italy, Finland, Jordan, Portugal, Eire, Austria and some other States. The present Government of China has been excluded, and the seat allocated to China in the Security Council is held by the so-called National Government of China, although that Government represents no part of China except the island of Formosa. With respect to the exclusion of States for the reason that they are not observing the Charter on human rights, we cannot possibly enforce by international action our own ideologies in the internal politics of other countries. Although those three countries were excluded because they had undertaken by treaty to observe those civil rights, which made their non-observance an international matter, it is of very doubtful wisdom to bind nations by treaty to carry on certain internal policies and then hold them guilty of infractions of international law if they do something in their own internal affairs which we dislike and which is forbidden by those treaties. Indeed, the conception of the United Nations purports to forbid that, for one of the paragraphs of Article 2 says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State … As to the internal treatment of their own subjects by Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland or any of the other nations that are associated with the Soviet, I do not know that they differ in any degree from that of which Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria have been guilty. Yet, no one would for a moment suggest expelling Russia and these other States. Why then should we exclude others which have adopted exactly the same policy? If Russia and her associates were to withdraw from the United Nations, and if the present Government in China, instead of being an applicant eager to come into the United Nations, were to refuse to come in, that would be the greatest blow which the United Nations and the world could suffer, for one half of the whole of the globe would be excluded from its purview. And just as the League of Nations collapsed, mainly, because the United States never joined and because, later on, Germany and Japan withdrew, so the United Nations would collapse because its membership was only partial and, as might be said, partisan.

Twice I have brought this matter before the House, as I have said, with no support. Public opinion, however, appears to be moving, for I read in a leading article in The Times only a few days ago paragraphs deprecating these exclusions and counter-exclusions and using these words: There is a strong case for abandoning this undignified bargaining … and for agreeing to admit all nations who can fairly claim to be independent and who are not engaged in a war of aggression. Evidently that means China in present circumstances. But as soon as the Korean question is settled, undoubtedly the seat which belongs as of right, under the terms of the Charter, to China—that is, to China, not to any particular Government of China—must be occupied by the Government which is governing practically the whole of that vast territory.

Then there is the statement made two days ago by the Foreign Secretary on this very point, and I venture to quote it at length—it is well within the rules of Order in this House—because it is of the utmost importance to this question and to the whole situation. Mr. Eden said: We in this House and in this country deeply regret that Italy is still excluded from the United Nations where, by every standard, she deserves a seat. We shall continue to do our utmost to secure her admission. When an honourable Member interrupted to say And others too. Mr. Eden replied: Yes, and others. He went on: I approach these problems with a new mind and I agree with the honourable Member. I have certain views about this problem, which I am not going to put forward this afternoon. I will let them develop a little bit. It is desirable to have others, but I do not like bargains of that kind very much. I should like to see the United Nations much more representative than it is at the present time. How that can be done is a matter on which I am not going to embark at the present time. Last night the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs returned to the point, reasserted his view and re-emphasised what he had already said. I am sure that those who share these opinions will be greatly encouraged by the forthright statement which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in which he is clearly speaking on behalf of the powerful Party which he represents here to-day. I venture to ask the Government and, more particularly, the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, who is himself one of the founders of the United Nations, having been at the San Francisco Conference together with Mr. Eden, whether he thinks there is any prospect of carrying into effect a policy such as has been adumbrated both by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by myself, that of making the United Nations what it was intended to be at the outset—the Parliament of Man.

Unhappily, however much we may desire to exalt it, the United Nations has proved useless to take any military action needed in any conflict involving one of the great Powers. In the Charter, a long section of ten Articles is devoted to provision for establishing a Military Staff Committee of the United Nations, consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the Powers represented in the Security Council. They arrange for contingents to be furnished by members whenever the Security Council think that military action is necessary. Those Sections were of great value in the case of Korea, and swift and effective action was, in fact, taken, under the magnificent leadership of the United States. But when it comes to any possible Third World War, how is it conceivable that the United Nations could take steps beforehand, through a military commission, when one member of that Commission would be the great Power which, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the United Nations, could be the only cause of a Third World War?

How can they sit down to make plans for armies and navies and an air force to put down an aggressor, when all of them know in their own minds that the possible aggressor is himself one of the members of that particular Staff Committee? In such circumstances, we have had to abandon hopes that those Articles of the Charter could be put into force, and the peace-loving members of the United Nations, the democratic members, have had to form regional organisations, or to maintain such unities as we have already achieved, the British Commonwealth itself, for example. The chief of these organisations is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: that is the principal body to ensure joint defence in any possible world war.

Now I come to my particular point—the relationship of this Organisation to the European movement and to European Union. European Union cannot, in itself, be a substitute for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. You may stretch the Atlantic to Turkey and Greece, but you cannot attempt so much violence to geography as to stretch Europe to cover America; and since the United States is the main factor in any measures for joint defence, it is obvious that our attention must be mainly devoted to the North Atlantic Organisation, rather than to the European Union. Nevertheless, the European Union is obviously good in itself. Anything that brings the nations together and provides for common action is an advantage to them and to the world. The European Union is a very fine conception, and it ought to receive the greatest practicable measure of support from this country. But how this Organisation is to develop is not yet clear. There must be some political organ which will have authority to carry out measures agreed upon by the members of the European Union; it cannot remain merely as it is.

It was only yesterday, I think, that we read that the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, had nominated the eighteen members to go from this country to take part in the Assembly, which is now about to sit at Strasbourg. My noble friend Lord Layton is one of the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, and he is there at the present time, otherwise he would be addressing your Lordships, instead of myself, from this Bench. These eighteen members are nominated by the Prime Minister personally, after consultation with the other Parties. They are not nominated by this Parliament; still less are they elected by the people. They have no representative authority of any sort or kind. They go as individuals. Consequently, while the other organ of the European Union, the Council of Ministers, represents Governments, and, therefore, what they say carries authority behind it, the Assembly does not yet do so.

There is evidently a quite proper and natural desire that some more formal organisation should be established for the Council of Europe. There are three possibilities. One is that the European Union should consist of a grouping of various functional authorities—those carrying out the Schuman Plan on iron and steel; an authority dealing with transport, with inter-European trade, and another dealing with currency exchange; that those should grow into one single whole, and that there should be one political authority emanating from them. That is one possibility, a functional body. The second is that there should be some kind of federal organ. That term has been very loosely used, in particular in France. It appears to mean any kind of organ that can be created, including a number of different States. That is a very loose and, as I think, improper use of the word "federal." According to political science and international lawyers, a federation is a body of States such as exists in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, the Argentine and elsewhere. It consists, in the first place, of a single body for the whole area, a Legislature elected directly by the people of the whole area, with an Executive to act for the whole area, and, simultaneously, a number of separate local legislatures and executives within the area, the functions of government being divided between the two. One has exclusively one set of functions, and the other exclusively the other set. The federation deals with foreign policy and defence, army and navy, and so forth, in peace and war, conscription and international trade and tariffs; the local States deal with other matters. It is of enormous importance that in regard to this question of Europe we should know whether or not we are working towards a federal conception in that sense. That is the second alternative. The first is functional, the second is federation.

But there is a third possibility which is hardly ever mentioned—namely, confederation. Confederation means that all the various Parliaments remain as they are and function as they are, but that there is created a new central body to which certain functions should be given. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that our thoughts should be in the direction of confederation rather than of federation. To my mind, a Federation of Europe, like a United States of Europe, and on similar lines, would be quite impossible, certainly in this generation and probably for a long time to come. It would mean that this Parliament in Westminster, the French Parliament in Paris, and others in Brussels and Rome, or wherever it may be, would all continue in existence but would have nothing to say on questions of foreign policy, defence, conscription, the finance that belongs to them or international trade. All those matters would be handed over to this central Federal Parliament of Europe, which would be directly elected by the whole of the peoples together, Britain providing perhaps fifty constituencies, Germany so many, France so many—a conjoint Parliament like the Parliament in Washington and a cosmopolitan Government of the same kind. I feel perfectly convinced that, however desirable such a step may be in theory, and however valuable it would be as a step towards a Government of the world, it would never be agreed to by this Parliament or by any other of the Parliaments of Europe. Consequently, it would only rouse false hopes and an enthusiasm that would never be gratified by achievement. In planning for the future we may have to depend for some time on the functional bodies, or we may be able to secure a confederation which should be a combination of the present Parliaments, though not a supercession of the present Parliaments and Governments.

Those are my two points. I would add a supplementary word on an entirely different question. I shall be very brief. I have nothing novel to say, only to express my full support to His Majesty's Government for the steps that they are taking with regard to Egypt and the Sudan. There, I think, there are no disagreements in the nation—a very different state of affairs from that with regard to Persia. Here we are standing upon International Law, the sanctity of treaties and the supremacy of the United Nations, and on the principle that if Egypt has any grievance it should be settled in the ordinary course of law, and by established procedure. With regard to the Sudan, the Condominium was set up fifty years ago because of the action by Great Britain in sending a great army and of the victory at Omdurman. The Egyptians had been driven out by the Sudanese in the previous decades. That army was victorious and a new Government had to be appointed in the Sudan.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

May I interrupt the noble Viscount to ask him whether he is aware that three-quarters of the troops engaged were Egyptian and that nearly all the expenses were borne by Egypt?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Three-quarters of the troops were Egyptian. I am not sure that if there had been no others there would have been any victory; the precedents of previous expeditions by Egypt might again have been repeated. However that may be, the Joint Government was established, in fact. There was an agreement—and one party cannot by itself break that agreement. If there is a partnership and one partner chooses to withdraw, the other party carries on; he is not obliged to abandon all his own rights, interests and duties. I say "duties," for we have undertaken duties to the Sudanese people and we hive set up there during fifty years, mainly through our own officers—men of great ability—what has been a model Government in Africa. And we have given pledges that that Government shall not be changed without the assent of the Sudanese people. We have brought the people a long way towards self-government and there is now a Legislative Assembly. That Legislative Assembly has, within the last few days, passed a resolution of strong protest against the course taken by the Egyptian Government, which the Sudanese Legislative Assembly wholly rejects. There must be consultation with the Sudanese people, and that consultation must take a form that may make it genuine and effective. It must be carried out in ways suited to the traditions and the present social organisation of the Sudanese people. I trust that this policy of adhering strictly to our pledges and right of consultation will be maintained in another part of Africa—the South African Protectorates—where similar pledges have been made on the full authority of successive Governments. I hope that these pledges will not be broken arid that that trust will not be betrayed.