HL Deb 21 December 1955 vol 195 cc447-78

3.44 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH

My Lords, as I was saying, the European Coal and Steel Authority, like all other organisations designed to bring France and Germany together, simply will not work unless Britain actively participates. If we once allow it to drop, we shall start up afresh the old economic rivalry between the Ruhr and Lorraine which obsessed Europe between the wars. The same is true of the Council of Europe and its associate bodies. It is not so much a question of whether we should like to join in, but rather that we must join in and actively participate if we are to achieve the objectives of our policy.

Then, finally, for Soviet Russia herself, I believe that this solution—the policy of linking Germany definitely with the West —must be the best solution. We can perfectly well understand Russia's need for security and her alarm of a free and unattached but reunited Germany. Her Majesty's Government have refused, as I understand, and quite rightly, to offer Soviet Russia any guarantee in respect of a reunited Germany so long as she is unattached. That seems to me to be perfectly right and nothing but common sense. How can we accept a guarantee in respect of an unattached Germany of sixty million people balancing loose in the middle of Europe? But if the reunited Germany decides to be a member of N.A.T.O., then the guarantee will be forthcoming. Then it becomes a guarantee worth having, with Germany forming part of a group of stable and disciplined, and democratic, Powers. It is a natural grouping to which, by history and by origin, Germany belongs.

3.46 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, before this interesting debate comes to an end, I should like to put a point of view which has not so far been expressed, although I am afraid it may possibly be rather an unpopular one. Before doing so, I should like to extend my own congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on his promotion. As one who has crossed swords a good deal with him in the past, it is a great pleasure to see him honoured in this way. Naturally, we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the failure of the renewed Geneva Conference; and, perhaps equally naturally, we have heard all the blame for that failure put upon the U.S.S.R. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, almost welcomed this failure, and the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, I think, positively welcomed it. I must say that I felt it was a great disappointment indeed. I did not regard it as being inevitable in the way they seemed to regard it as such. Indeed, I think that more blame for the failure rests upon the Western Powers than upon the U.S.S.R. No doubt there is blame on both sides, but if one had to apportion the blame, I think that that is the way in which I personally should be inclined to apportion it.

It is interesting to note that in a remarkable article which was contributed to the New York Herald Tribune, and which many of your Lordships will no doubt have read, Mr. Walter Lippman, who is perhaps one of the shrewdest and most impartial observers of the foreign scene now writing and is far from being Communist in his sympathies, as I think everybody will agree, pointed out that if the policy of the N.A.T.O. Powers towards Russia at the resumed Geneva talks did not become rather less wooden than it had been, and did not develop a flexibility which had certainly not been evident up to that stage, the inevitable result would be not only the failure of the resumed discussions, but to leave the U.S.S.R. in a stronger position than she had held before the discussions started. Of course, that is exactly what has happened.

I must say that I think the theory that the Western Powers have a monopoly of reasonableness just will not stand up to examination. In this they have in fact pursued what seems to me to be quite obviously the policy of old-fashioned power politics. On the other hand, the U.S.S.R. has, I think, made quite substantial concessions and has pursued a policy which is much more flexible, and as a result of that has obtained the advantage. About a year ago, in foreign affairs discussions in this House, we all assumed that the position of Austria was solidified. Russia showed no signs whatever of making any concession, and joint occupation of Austria for many years seemed inevitable. We now knew that, as a result of concessions on the part of the U.S.S.R., that is not so.

Again, great surprise was expressed only last week when, as a result of Russian flexibility and willingness to make concessions, the difficulty about new entrants into the United Nations was overcome. Had it depended upon the United States of America that difficulty certainly would not have been overcome. Again this is symptomatic of much greater Russian readiness to behave reasonably. I know that many people will regard this as merely proof that the Russians are exceedingly subtle and are playing a deep and underhand game. Where concessions are made they can always be explained away in that fashion. Russian intransigence in respect of Egypt and, more recently, of India has been prayed in aid of such a proposition. What right have we to expect Russia to keep out of the Middle East and other parts of the world? It seems to be assumed that Egypt, India, Palestine and everywhere else, are completely forbidden ground to one of the great world Powers, a Power obviously as entitled as any other to take part in discussions concerning these matters. It is completely unrealistic to expect the Russians to keep out of world politics as apparently they are expected to do.

So far as my reading and knowledge of debates here and in another place goes, no attempt has been made to bring the Russians into discussions concerning the exceedingly difficult and complex problem which has grown up in the Middle East since the end of the war. Treaties are entered into between the Americans and ourselves, and the Turks, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and everybody else along the borderline of Russia; yet those are apparently not regarded as any threat to that country, while at the same time we seem to deny that even those problems which are much closer to the frontier of Russia than to our own are any concern of theirs. If we insist on keeping the Russians at arms length when we are attempting to get a solution (and God knows! we have not made the strenuous attempts we should have made), and to settle this very difficult and dangerous Israel-Arab problem, it is not surprising that, after all these years, they should decide to intervene, and to do so, naturally, in the way which they think best suits their interest It is very unrealistic to expect them to do anything else.

Your Lordships had a discussion about the problems of the Middle East only a few days ago. I do not wish to go over that ground again, but the Baghdad Pact was accurately described by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, in a remarkable speech, as a very obvious threat to the Russians; and he pointed out how absurd it was for us to protest that Russians, having had that Pact levelled against them, should engineer a riposte. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in a most interesting speech this afternoon suggested to your Lordships that the world had nothing to fear from American imperialism and that what the world should fear was American isolationism I am not so sure that the noble Viscount is right. I think the world has a good deal to fear from all kinds of imperialism. The fact that American imperialism takes a rather different form from that of imperialisms of the past does not necessarily mean that it is not dangerous. To Russians looking round their own frontiers it must appear a very considerable danger.

Where is all the oil going that comes from the great oilfields almost abutting on the frontiers of Russia? Though there has been talk of oil imperialism, certainly a large part of the oil is crossing the Atlantic to America I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, is perfectly right in suggesting that for reasons of this kind the Russians do have cause to fear. What happens to the money paid for this oil? Must almost all of it go into the pockets of sheiks and princelings and others? How much of it goes to improving the lot of the unfortunate fellaheen and working peoples of the lands from which that oil is extracted?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, in one of his forthright speeches which always interest us so much, said that if we are to defeat the Communist creed it must be by substituting for it a finer and purer creed. Not only must we have a finer and purer creed; we must practise it, too. I suggest that there has been no practice of any such finer creed in the exploitation of these great oil reserves of the Middle East. Until we can put our hands on our hearts and say that this money is going to the peoples of those lands, and is not to be spent on expensive motor cars, planes and such other luxuries as we are told are already remarkable in the capitals of these small kings and princelings, we cannot really object to the Russians' taking a hand.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, may I ask whether he is not aware that Iraq has a Development Board taking practically the whole of the revenue from oil, which is being applied to long-term development for the benefit of the people?

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, there is no doubt some difference between one country and another in these matters. My own information as to what is going on in Iraq is not quite the same as that of the noble Viscount, though I believe the situation there is rather better than in Saudi-Arabia, for instance, where it calls aloud to the heavens for redress.

In all these circumstances I do not think we can reasonably blame the Communists for attempting to spread their faith among the peoples of these lands, many of whom are getting such a raw deal at the present time. For this reason, also, the campaign we have recently seen conducted by the touring commissars from Moscow is very understandable. It is highly original, and for that reason exceedingly disconcerting. It is a new form of diplomacy which certainly does not fit into the pattern to which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is accustomed. Naturally, therefore, a great deal of feeling has been caused in the Western world. Their statements have been couched in language altogether too strong, often very unfair, and exceedingly irritating, and one can well understand why it has so greatly upset people. But different people have different ideas of what language can properly be used, and, indeed, so have different ages. In many ways the Russians have only reached a stage of culture and development which we have long ago passed by, and for that reason it was a little tactless of Krushchev to make those historical references.

I had the interest during the luncheon adjournment to look at the record of a State trial in this country, at which a very great Lord Chief Justice, then Attorney-General, prosecuted Sir Walter Raleigh. I looked at this just to refresh my mind. I see that the Attorney-General, as he then was, referred to Sir Walter Raleigh as "Thou viper," and he said: "Fie, I thou thee thou traitor"; and, again "Thou art a monster." That is the sort of thing which was accepted as proper language from an Attorney-General in this country three hundred years ago. But, even more recently, perhaps the most famous of our most recent Prime Ministers, writing about the exiled Trotsky, used these words: Trotsky possessed in his nature all the qualities requisite for the act of civic destruction—the organising command of a Carnot; the cold detached intelligence of a Machiavelli; the mob oratory of a Cleon; the ferocity of Jack the Ripper; the toughness of Titus Oates. No trace of compassion, no sense of human kinship, no apprehension of the spiritual, weakened his high and tireless capacity for action. Like the cancer bacillus he grew, he fed, he tortured, he slew in fulfilment of his nature. I suggest that nothing stronger than that has emanated even from the Russian leaders, and that we should think twice before we condemn them for using language of a similar character to that which great leaders in Western Europe have used against their leaders. I certainly endorse everything said by both the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, to the effect that this sort of thing should not allow us to be inhospitable to them when they come to see us in the Spring.

The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, asked us to return to a policy of "international responsibility." I wish we could do so. But I also wish I could think our foreign policy had always been so clearly marked by a sense of "international responsibility" as the right reverend Prelate evidently does. I wish I could feel that our foreign policy in the, years just before the last great war was marked by any such feelings of international responsibility. Our foreign policy is naturally based on what we regard as preservation of our own national interests. It may well be that it is sometimes more far-sighted than at other times. I like to think of those acts of withdrawal from imperialism which were associated with the great Labour Government of which I had the honour to be a junior member. The withdrawal of our imperial domination from India, Pakistan and Ceylon was marked by that very far-sighted feeling for national interest which leads to really fruitful results.

But when I look round on the world I cannot altogether agree that we have completely given up our imperialistic ways. And when the right reverend Prelate reproaches the U.S.S.R. for practising a form of colonial imperialism—the inference being that we no longer practise anything of the sort—I cannot forget that in many parts of the world British troops are still to be seen in the streets of the towns, and the administration is carried out by British administrators and judges. There have been a great many scandals in Kenya in recent time over the conduct of the police in that unhappy country—a fact which is well known all over the world. I am far from suggesting that there is not in Russia a form of colonial imperialism, but one cannot overlook the fact that Russian troops are not seen in the streets of Warsaw, or in the streets of Prague, or in the streets of Bucharest; and that in all those sections of the U.S.S.R. in Asia which have been referred to as if they were held down, we really do not know whether they are held down or not. People who have been there give very different accounts of what happens there. At arty rate, it is not yet for us to throw taunts of this sort in the faces of those people with whom we must make peace if the world is to be saved. I deplore this unmannerly conduct—because unmannerly it certainly has been—of the Russian leaders in India, and of those who have given way to unmannerly retorts so that we have had almost the beginning of a slanging competition in the West. That sort of thing will never lead to what we all want to see: solid progress towards a more peaceful world.

My Lords, I would finish by taking up some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh. I felt it was rather unfortunate that he should have adopted almost a threatening tone in his admonition of Germany. The Germans must be left free to decide what they think best for themselves. It may well be that the idea of a neutralised Germany as a sort of buffer between Western Europe and the U.S.S.R. is not a practicable one. But I confess that I was far from being convinced by the noble Lord's arguments. He suggested that if this neutralised Germany were brought into being, Western Europe could he defended only by peripheral air action. Many distinguished military students, however, are sure that Western Europe can, as it is, be defended only by peripheral air action. Certainly if Germany could in fact be neutralised, the Russian armies and the Russian bombers would be farther away from our frontiers by many hundreds of miles, and the great danger that a world war might be brought about again as a result of some frontier incident, some upset leading to a great and violent forest fire, would clearly be put further into the background.

I do not feel that the last word, by any means has been said on this problem of a neutralised Germany. I should have said that to say to the Germans: "You have got to come in on our side," as in effect the noble Lord did say, was altogether too threatening. To say that neither we nor the U.S.S.R. would tolerate a neutral Germany was a very extreme statement. The Germans themselves must clearly decide what they want to do. If I had to choose between a neutralised Germany and a Germany which had joined up with the U.S.S.R. I should have no difficulty in knowing where my choice would lie. For these reasons I cannot agree with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a rather more realistic view in regard to the solution of these problems, and will be ready to take steps of a kind, which they certainly have not taken so far, showing that they are prepared to meet the Russians half-way, or at any rate at some distance, in order that some method may be found of solving, if not the fundamental difficulties which divide us and which we are now a long way from solving, at any rate the smaller ones. If we could do this, I think it would at any rate take us some little distance along the path towards peace.

4.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, expressed the view that his opinion was an unpopular one. I do not think that in a free Parliament those who express a view held sincerely ought ever to be unpopular. But had he said that his view represented a tiny minority of opinion in this House and the country, I should heartily have agreed with him; and I must say that I rejoice in the fact, because I think that the attitude which the speaker presented is wrong-headed, incoherent, illogical and, above all, dated. It is dated not by the best period of English political thought but by the period between the wars, when we were busy building up for ourselves one of the greatest catastrophes in human history; and nowhere was it more dated than when he used the conventional catch-phrase "old-fashioned power politics." The noble Lord used "old-fashioned" like the word "rosy-fingered" in the dawn of Homer—conventionally. What are politics except about power and about right and wrong?

LORD CHORLEY

There is a tremendous difference between right and wrong and power.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

That is precisely what politics are about—the marriage of power with right. That is why we are here. Nobody realises the relationship between power and politics more than the Russians, and we who believe that there is a right and a wrong, as well as power, should not forget either category in the equation of our thinking.

There was a period, not long ago, when the views of the noble Lord were fashionable, when it was thought that we could afford to ignore the category of power in the preparation of policy. Where I would condemn the noble Lord's speech even more heartily is that in my view he is not only forgetting the category of power in politics, but is compromising with the category of right and wrong. It is not only a question of meeting people halfway—what the noble Lord said was very nearly halfway. There is such a thing as trying to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire. There is such a thing as trying to meet people halfway to hell.

If, having made up your mind that ultimate human values are involved in policy, you find yourself faced with an opponent, it is no good trying to find a formula which will meet him halfway. That is the way in which you will lose your own soul and lose your life as well. It is because politics are a marriage between power and right or wrong that they are interesting and important. It is also for that very reason that they are dangerous. In my opinion, we cannot afford to entertain opinions like that of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.

But I think that he and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have been troubled, as I am troubled—and I frankly say, deeply troubled—by the bitter contrast which exists between the festival which we are all about to celebrate when the House rises for the Recess, the festival of warmth and friendliness, the festival of children and the hearth, the festival of faith and redemption, and the black, forbidding and, so far as one can see, deteriorating aspect of international affairs. This is a contrast which we can all deplore and which I think has been the underlying theme of this debate. It is about that contrast, and about the part which the Russians have played in it, that I want to say something in the minutes which remain to me.

I have said that the present situation, in appearance at least, is deteriorating. I believe it is deteriorating in reality. There are, however, aspects of the matter which give one some grounds for relief. I have always been afraid of making a situation worse by saying harsh words about the less reputable aspects of Russian policy I have never said in blunt terms, as I say now, that the threat to the world lies not in the hydrogen bomb but in the conventional armaments which the Russians possess and by which they are holding down half of the world and threatening the other half. The hydrogen bomb will never be used unless conventional armaments are brought into effect, and it would never have been brought pinto being if Russia had abandoned the policy of world revolution to which she is committed, as we know from the quotation from the late Josef Djugashvili read by the noble Lord.

The sense of relief I have mentioned is simply this. I had originally thought, in my folly, that it might be considered inflammatory to say that the Russians were sitting on the necks of the Ukrainians, of the Catholic Poles, of the Moravian Christians in Czechoslovakia and of the other subject peoples who, I say with boldness and without hesitation, are held down by one of the most brutal and villainous tyrannies the world has ever seen. Held down—why doubt it? Have these countries ever held a general election? Is there a country among them which would venture to admit free opinion from the West to challenge the orthodox view? Is there a country amongst them which does not have execution without proper trial, in the ordinary sense? The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, purports to be a law teacher. Is it not incontestable proof that a country is held down when it has censorship, secret executions, secret political police and the absence of fair trials?

No, let the noble Lord have the boldness of his convictions and legal knowledge, and he will not hesitate to say that these countries are held down. I had originally thought that such language might possibly be considered inflammatory. Now I know to the contrary. We know now, on the best authority, on the most unimpeachable Marxist authority, that it is no longer even a breach of be traditional laws of hospitality to say that one country has been "sitting on the neck" of another. It is merely an amenity of international debate to condemn the policy of the Russians as brutal imperialism, rendered all the worse because of the use it makes of traitors and tyrants and quislings in the countries which it abuses and exploits. These statements are now the common coin of international controversy. Let us follow their example and their lead. Hitherto, we have been afraid of stating our sympathy with the subject peoples of Eastern Europe. In future, we need have no such fear.

We now know that when the Russians put arms in the hands of the Egyptians, whose sole purpose is to destroy the state of Israel, they are indulging in nothing more than a "common commercial transaction." Her Majesty's Government can well infer that when the Russians, as rumoured, intend to arm the frontier tribesmen against a fellow-member of the Commonwealth, Pakistan, that will be described in like language. But let the Russians not forget that if they are engaged, as they are engaged upon an attempt to exploit the contradictions and the difficulties of the West, that is a game that two can play. And when they are sitting, as they are sitting, upon the necks of subject people, who hate them, as one knows they hate them, more than any tyranny has been hated for centuries, with a hatred worse even than the hatred inspired by Hitler's Germany, then we need have no fear but that they are more vulnerable to this type of attack than to any kind of attack which can he presented against the West.

They have now freed us from any obligation not to speak about the satellites in terms in which the satellites themselves will be the first to recognise as the truth. And I hone that Her Majesty's Government will not mince language when they speak to the Russians, because peace is not to be won by saying nice things about nasty conduct. It may have been something of that kind that was in the mind of the spokesman of the Foreign Office when he spoke of Marshal Bulganin's speech as "hypocrisy." That no doubt was a terrible impropriety and a gross breach of protocol. But there are times when breach of protocol and impropriety are to be applauded, rather than condemned. I must say that I should feel much easier about the Foreign Office if its subordinate members had more outbursts of patriotism—and in those circumstances one would have had less to say about Burgess and Maclean. I must say, frankly, that I was sorry that Her Majesty's Government were not the first to describe as "hypocrisy" this kind of talk in India from the Soviet leaders. I am glad that they have, at any rate in part, made up for that omission.

I think we must face up to what the Russian Government are really after. They have, in fact, pursued a perfectly intelligible line of conduct, as clearly laid down in the theory of their movement as that of Hitler was laid down in the book Mein Kampf. Personally, I find Problems of Leninism, by the late Josef Stalin, a highly illuminating work. It tells us nothing which is not useful to us if we read it with intelligent anticipation, and it forms an admirable guide to Russian policy, even after Stalin's death. The theory of the Russian Revolution is expressed in didactic, if not actually pedantic, language: that the success of the October and November Revolution of 1917 was rendered possible by the use of the Communist Party as the spearhead of the proletariat, but only after its alliance with the peasants, who were to be controlled and exploited, as they have been. In point of fact, it is the application of that lesson, by analogy, upon which the Russian Government have been engaged since 1945.

The spearhead of the proletariat is now the Russian Army in the West of Europe. It is intended for use, but not at present. The objective is to undermine the imperialisms of the West by forming an alliance with what the Russians would call the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. That is what Messrs. Krushchev and Bulganin were about in India; that is what they were told to do by their departed leader, and everything they have done in the East has been an example of it. For myself, I prefer them when they are being rude about us to when they are being polite, because I take the general view that they mean the opposite of what they say. When they were talking about peace, they were waging war in Indo-China. Now that they are talking in bellicose terms, I am led to believe that they are thinking of peace. For that reason, I somewhat rejoice at their roughness of approach, and perhaps they will understand it when I reciprocate, because one of the most difficult things in the world is not to get on with your friends, or to persuade your enemies, when you know that that is likely to be impossible. One of the most difficult things in the world in politics is to try to treat your declared enemy like a civilised being. That may involve a condemnation of his action without a positive attempt to destroy his person. Maybe the Russians are beginning to think along those lines, and if so, I hope that this will be a happy omen.

I had a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend who sits beside me in his approach to the question of the projected visit of these two Russian statesmen to this country, but on the whole I do not agree with him. I heartily agree with the view that we are doing ourselves no good by trying simply to be nice to people who have insulted us. That, in itself, has no advantage, diplomatically or materially. If it were simply a question of telling them that we, too, are people who must be wooed, and that if insulted we do not respond favourably, it might be advantageous to tell them that they are not wanted. Personally, I doubt whether they will come, because I think they will be afraid to come to the atmosphere of freedom which exists in these islands; but if they do come, I should make them welcome. I believe that it would be a very educative experience for them to come here. If they come, they will see presented to their gaze for the first time the spectacle of a people that has been free for centuries.

LORD CHORLEY

Has the noble Viscount forgotten that they were in Switzerland which, equally, has been free for centuries?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Perhaps the noble Lord is right—but evidently the experience requires to be repeated in order to achieve the necessary educational result. At any rate, these statesmen will see here the spectacle of a people that has been free for centuries; a people, on the whole, I hope, fearless in its criticism. I hope the visitors will get this fearless criticism when they come—but accompanied, let it be added, by the offer of devoted and loyal friendship and comradeship, from every man and woman in this country, which the Russian people can have for the asking if they desire to seek it. That has been true, certainly within my knowledge, ever since our alliance in the war. They will find here a people brave and successful in war, yet wholly devoted to the arts of peace a people sure, from a deep spiritual conviction, as well as from bitter recent experience, that peace is always better than conflict, and friendship always better than hatred.

I do not think the Russians will lose by the experience of meeting such a people. They seem to fear—or until recently they seemed to fear—that contact with England has a kind of infectious result; that (to quote the language of an old Common Law judge) there is in the air of England some kind of infection of freedom. I hope that there is, and I hope that the virus may enter even those stony hearts when the Russians do come, because, in truth and in fact, we have something which we can teach them if they are willing to learn. Liberty is not a luxury to be enjoyed but to be cast aside in times of difficulty. There is nothing more certain in political experience than that freedom works. It works, and has worked, in English history; and it works on the other side of the Atlantic where our great Allies are situated.

We hear much of the social experiment in the Soviet Union. But has there ever been in the long history of mankind a social experiment comparable with those here and in the United States of America? Russia, an established country, was taken over by violence and has never yet reached a state of society in which it was possible to hold an election. In America, when our ancesters came there with the idea of liberty under law, they had no established country but a howling wilderness. There were added to our own peoples speaking the English language, and carrying with them English traditions, the outcasts of every race in Europe—the poor, the persecuted, the oppressed and the exiled—and within a period of three or four generations they built up a living society which, in little more than twice as long, has produced the highest concentration of wealth and power that the world has ever seen. Is this not a social experiment from which our friends on the other side of the Iron Curtain would agree to learn something?

Our own country is not very large, but in the history of mankind it is not always the large countries which have taught the lesson. When we learn the elements of philosophy or religion at school we do not seek the records of Egypt or Syria or Babylon: we look to Athens, with a population little more than twice that of modern Oxford; we look to Rome, smaller than Manchester or Leeds, or we look to Jerusalem, little bigger than an English country town. I doubt not that when the history of mankind comes to be read the history of this small island, anchored off the north-west coast of Europe, with its great people, its united people, where privilege exists only as an opportunity to serve, and where society has been, within my own lifetime, by common experience and common suffering, reunited to a state never before reached, will offer as much in its own way as any of the three cities which I have mentioned. We need not be afraid to show the Russians our country. It is they, I fear, and sincerely fear, who will be afraid to see the spectacle of so much happiness accompanied by so much freedom in the world.

Therefore, although I began this speech with a sad reflection upon the bitter contrast between the warmth of our Christian Christmas at home and the cold bitterness of the international scene without, I must end it on a note of hope, because even as against the Americans we, in a real sense, are the true forum of free society. It would be no criticism of the American Congress to say that it has never developed into such a forum of free speech as we have in both Houses of Parliament in Westminster. What we say here re-echoes round the world. We can afford to hold our banner aloft in confidence that it will win. We believe —and this is the point of difference between us and the Russians—that the natural sentiments of the human herd, the search for objective truth, the desire for justice, the yielding to sentiments of equity and compassion, are not strange phenomena brought about and determined by some purely material chain of causation, but are part of the wide universe itself. It is because we hold this belief that the Russians will be welcome here. It is in that spirit that I offer to Comrades Bulganin and Krushchev a very happy Christmas. I hope they will have the sense to allow themselves to enjoy it and give it to other people.

4.33 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, we have just listened to one of the few real orators in this House, or in the country, and I am sure we all hope that he will make many speeches of similar eloquence and elevation in this House. I am sorry that he felt it necessary to assault my noble friend Lord Chorley so vigorously at the beginning. I do not myself agree with all the observations—indeed, with quite a large part of them—which fell from my noble friend, but I felt the noble Viscount was somewhat severe. I myself am indebted to the noble Viscount. But for him, I suppose I should not be here at all. He elevated me by a defeat inflicted on me in Oxford, and by a defeat inflicted on another member of my family he saved me from dancing attendance at the stage door of another place. I am bound to say that when the noble Viscount referred to the period between the wars, when, to use his own expression, we were building up for ourselves one of the greatest catastrophes in history, he seemed to have overlooked the fact that he made his own contribution when he was first elected at the time of Munich. He won his seat on the strength of the Munich issue, at a moment when that policy was vehemently condemned, as we all recall, by the present Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and others. So if we are going to ask where my noble friend Lord Chorley learned his politics, I can only say that I hope the noble Viscount will climb into the same white sheet.

VTSCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like him to know that I do not regret a single syllable of what I did or said then.

LORD PAKENHAM

If that is so, that is the only complaint I have with the noble Viscount: that he never regrets anything. That is the only complaint, and a small one. I am bound to say that I was sorry when I read my morning newspaper that I did not find the name of the noble Viscount included in the list of new appointments. I should welcome someone with his strength and vigour in this list of somewhat tired men. I know it is my duty to wish all success to Her Majesty's Government, and certainly I do—it is a patriotic task. The News Chronicle is, I suppose, a fairly objective paper. At any rate, it represents the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who told us—and he went rather far, I thought—that the duty of the Opposition is not to oppose but to support the Government. So I suppose the News Chronicle is thoroughly harmonious and well disposed towards the Government. But they informed us that the Prime Minister will also be relieved of an increasing physical strain which has been causing some concern to those close to him. They say also that Sir Walter Monckton leaves the Ministry of Labour because of the strain. I am afraid we all know and deeply regret the reason why Mr. Butler is understood to be a very tired man. So, in this Government of convalescents, I feel that the noble Viscount would have struck a fine, bustling note; and I deeply regret his absence.

However, I will turn to the issues before the House. We have listened to a number of valuable suggestions, but I will not refer to them: it is the task of the noble Marquess to reply in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch-rye, raised our spirits by suggesting that Mr. Herbert Morrison should be made "C.-in-C. Cold War." That seemed very acceptable. I was a little surprised, because I always felt a personal affinity with the noble Lord, but not on the political "tie up," to use a colloquialism.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I did say it was not a question of politics at all. I was talking about the need for somebody of the highest administrative ability, and during the war we all knew of his abilities.

LORD PAKENHAM

Of course, in this House, if one wants to propose something at all unusual, it is always as well to say that it is a non-political move. I entirely agree that it was the most tactful way of saying it. The noble Lord went on to say that 1951 was the last year in which we showed any real initiative in the cold war, and that since then the initiative had passed to the Russians. He did not draw the conclusion, but unless my memory is wrong, that was the last year in which a Labour Government was in power. So I feel that the noble Lord has been exceptionally helpful in this debate.

I turn to the main issue, and I do not want to keep the House for very long. It is an issue on which we have all concentrated in one way or another, the issue of our relations with the Russians. In particular, may I discuss the proposed visit of the Russian leaders on which, more than anything else, we have focused this afternoon? I ask the House to consider just for a moment whether, as a people, we have at the present time an agreed policy towards Communist Russia. I think we generally say in this House that there is a broad agreement; I do not dispute that. We know what kind of method we have in mind, a method of firmness and strong armaments on the one side, and, on the other side, a readiness to negotiate.

I am a little less certain whether we are quite sure of the objectives of our policy. They can be formulated in different ways, but I would place them under headings of this sort: first, peaceful coexistence; secondly, military containment; and, thirdly, peaceful conversion. It seems to me that the last is important and that we should clearly accept it as part of our duty daring this terrible time. I do not feel—and I do not think perhaps many noble Lords feel—that if we merely scrape through somehow during our lifetime without any war with the Russians we shall figure very gloriously in history I agree with the language, much more eloquent than mire, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, expressed the same feelings. We should have left vast areas of the world under an evil tyranny, and if our generation were to pass away leaving a ghastly situation of this kind, I submit that we should deserve the most severe censure of future ages if we made no attempt to bring it to an end without war.

But once we accept an active responsibility for trying ceaselessly to bring home to Communist Russia the wickedness or foolishness of her ways, it seems to me—I think this has been generally accepted, certainly by the noble Viscount—that we accept a responsibility, in practice, for making contact with the Russians at first hand, whether on a high level or a low level, for getting to know them well, and for exerting the personal influence which no threat, and certainly no long-range propaganda, for that matter, can ever exercise to the same extent. It seems to me that we must believe in ourselves; and, having a belief, we can exercise an influence for good. It will come only from intimacy, mutual awareness of one another as human beings and, where possible, personal friendship.

I recognise—and the noble Viscount who has just spoken so eloquently about this point has put it much better than I could—that here we are faced with a dilemma. In a sense, it is the dilemma that always arises when one tries to shake hands with evil men and do one's bit to try to reclaim people whom one con- siders evil, so far as it is in one's power to judge other human beings. To me, and to nearly all of us—perhaps to all of us—Communism is an atheistic, materialistic philosophy, and it is practising unrelenting torture over wide areas of the earth. On every level, therefore, the attempt to win Communists through friendship is bound to involve all of us who are Christians, or who adhere to anything in Christian, ethical values, in a soul-racking dilemma. When we are dealing with delinquents, if we try to help people in prison, they are people who are under control; if we try to help people who have been in prison, they are people who are trying to rehabilitate themselves; but here we are dealing with wrongdoers who are glorying in their misdeeds and are anxious to continue their life of misbehaviour. It is a difficult situation. It is easy to say that we should condemn the sin and yet forgive the sinner. I think that is the right slogan; and yet how impossible it seems to be to apply that Christian value in practice when we are faced with a concrete issue like the visit of the Russian leaders.

Once again, I seem to be coming into a rather unusual collaboration with the noble Viscount, but I think I find myself in sympathy with a good deal that was in his mind. I do not regard the revolting speeches made in India as ranking particularly high among the crimes of the Communist leaders. I do not stop to discuss these speeches, because they are utterly execrable, but there are many worse things that the Communists have done. It may well be that they would not have been invited if they had revealed their thoughts before the invitations were issued. I can recognise the diplomatic arguments to be used against maintaining those invitations now, but, without wishing to pursue the argument backwards and forwards at any length, I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I hope the Government will persevere with their plans for the visit so long as they have any hope at all that good rather than evil will flow from it. My own strong conviction is that to cancel the visit would be to set back for years the whole dream, which has recently become a little more of a reality, of peacefully breaking down the Iron Curtain and getting to know the Russians on some kind of terms of intimacy and, it may be, friendship and understanding, and winning them ultimately in that way—and it can be done only in that way—to elementary Christian ideas.

I do not attach such high hopes to the conversion of the great twin brothers who are shortly to visit us. I expect they are pretty "tough nuts," and will be the last two men in the whole of Russia to be converted: but let us see what can be done. I set great hopes on the kind of contacts that are being made in the way of the visits to Moscow of the Hamlet actors and of the "Wolves," and the links which are being established by B.E.A. Therefore, I feel that such things as the acceptance of these Russian leaders, and the seeing by the Russians of something of Mr. Peter Brook, the producer of Hamlet, and of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, the Chairman of B.E.A., form the only process which in the long run will work. Unless it works, the Iron Curtain will remain, and if the Iron Curtain remains long enough a great war will come to blot out what we know by "civilisation" I firmly believe that that visit should be persevered with.

If they come, as I suggest they should come, I believe that the real danger will be not to them but to ourselves. I agree that the heart of the people is sound and that we need not think of any widespread Communist movement here. I see the danger rather differently. It seems to me that the danger is in our misleading, and it might even be corrupting, ourselves.

Before I close, I should like to mention a line of thought which has not been placed before this House this afternoon. I have recently been reading a number of profoundly interesting books about the years that led up to 1939. One was Lord Templewood's book The Diaries of Mr. Tom Jones; another was the biography of Mr. Geoffrey Dawson, and there were others of that kind. Like others who have been reading those books, I suppose, I have been reflecting on the policy of appeasement which this country followed during those years and which still seems to me, as it seemed to me then, to have been wrong, not only in its tactics and calculations but also in its ultimate criteria. And yet it was embraced and supported by men of the highest moral character, whose careers have been shining examples in many ways.

If I must provide a clue in a sentence, I should find it in a letter which Mr. Chamberlain wrote after his first meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. It is quoted in Mr. Keith Feiling's The Life of Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain wrote, after his first meeting with Hitler, that he had a certain confidence in him and, in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness he thought he saw in his face, he got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word. How can Mr. Chamberlain have thought any such thing? To say that Mr. Chamberlain was so municipally-minded that he could not judge a man unless he was a candidate for the post of waterworks superintendent under the Birmingham Corporation is to do an absurd injustice to a very remarkable and patriotic Englishman. The truth is, or seems to be, that, when you embark on negotiations, particularly under fierce criticism, there seems to be a general law that you persuade yourself up to the last minute, and sometimes beyond, that these controversial figures are all that your policy appears to require them to be. You acquire a kind of vested interest in their honesty.

I yield to no one in this House—and that is saying a great deal—in my almost fanatical admiration for Sir Winston Churchill. I should have thought that nobody has made a stronger stand against Communism than he. But after the Yalta Conference Sir Winston used words in another place which he quotes in his Memoirs. On February 7, 1945, Sir Winston Churchill said: The impression I brought back from the Crimea and from all my other contacts is that Marshal Stalin and the Soviet leaders wish to have honourable friendship and equality with the Western democracies. I feel also that their word is their bond. That is what Sir Winston said in 1945. In his Memoirs he added that he felt bound to proclaim his confidence in Soviet good faith, and in the hopes of procuring it. May I give one more quotation, a few lines from Mr. Truman's recently published Memoirs? He took a critical view of the Communists early on. He describes his impression of his first meeting with Stalin at Potsdam in these words: I was impressed by him and talked to him straight from the shoulder. He looked me in the eye when he spoke and I felt hopeful that we could reach an agreement that would be satisfactory to the world and to ourselves. Mr. Chamberlain opened his eyes after Prague, by which time a great mischief had been accomplished. The eyes of Sir Winston and Mr. Truman were opened more readily.

I urge that our Russian visitors should now come to us as invited. But let us on no account deceive ourselves as to the nature of the forces they represent. On no account let us suppress or muffle any voices raised in protest in this country against the suffering which they are inflicting on humanity. Let us do what we can, consistent with our position as hosts, to bring home to the Russian leaders our real view of Communism and what it stands for. And, above all, let us never forget that the people we want to rescue, and in whom we are really interested, are not this handful of leaders but the millions who are now their deluded supporters or their intimidated victims. Let us never forget that, from our point of view, the real purpose and the only justification of a visit of this kind, can be the hope that it will help us to promote so many and such intimate contacts between ourselves and the people of Russia that the Russians themselves will decide to have done with darkness and will join us in groping for the light.

4.54 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I do not propose to intervene in the retrospective Oxford City by-election which took place at one time between the two noble Lords who have just spoken; but in looking at the whole field which has been covered by this debate I am at once confronted— and I am bound to say somewhat depressed—by one fact in particular. In all the speeches that have been made to-day. I think there has been only one passing, incidental, reference to the existence of the United Nations and what it has been endeavouring to accomplish. When we are having a Foreign Affairs debate over the entire field of international relations it is perhaps rather a depressing thought that the United Nations should figure to so small an extent.

I call attention to that fact only because I want just to remind your Lordships of one particular aspect. In various ways I think that the United Nations has had an eventful, though perhaps not always an entirely fruitful, Session, which is just coming to an end. I thought that, from some quarter, there would come during the course of this debate a recognition of the view that we have always taken, which is not peculiar to this side of the House: that the greater degree of universality that can be produced in the United Nations the better hope there will be for its ultimate success. I thought, therefore, that the recent proceedings at the United Nations, which resulted in the admission of at least a further sixteen nations, would have achieved the tribute of some comment from some quarter in the course of the discussion.

LORD PAKENHAM

May I interrupt the noble Marquess to tender my apologies for not making some comment? It seems to me beyond all doubt that the inclusion of Ireland alone would justify the greatest possible satisfaction.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, whose local patriotism is no less great than his general patriotism in these matters. But what I particularly wanted to point out to your Lordships was that much of the credit for this definitely improved state of affairs ought to be given to the Canadian Government for the lead which they have given in that direction. Having watched from a distance the proceedings in New York, I think it is true to say that those Commonwealth countries which were already members of the United Nations played a notable combined part in bringing about the present improved state of affairs, and I think it will be a source of satisfaction to them, as it certainly is to Her Majesty's Government, that one of the successful results of this recent development has been the ultimate admission of so fully qualified a candidate as Ceylon.

My Lords, I do not think it necessary to go into the somewhat abstruse, and perhaps not always exhilarating, manœuvres which preceded and, indeed, seem to have succeeded some of the discussions on this matter. But in passing —and in passing only, because I do not wish to discuss it at length—I would express regret that, although it proved possible to admit these sixteen nations, the exclusion of Japan still persisted, much to the regret of Her Majesty's Government, who were of the opinion that Japan would be entirely justified in obtaining election. Only to-day, I think, we have taken such steps as seem possible to us at the United Nations to endeavour at least to lay the foundation, at the next meeting of the United Nations, of circumstances which will permit of the admission of Japan.

LORD CHORLEY

Before the noble Marquess leaves that point, would he not perhaps be generous enough to allow that the Russians did prove accommodating in the matter?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Well, my Lords, if the noble Lord is desiring to extol the part which the Russians played in that election, I think perhaps the best approach to it is to say as little as possible.

LORD CHORLEY

That is as generous as the noble Marquess can be, is it?

LORD HENDERSON

May I intervene? Does not the real trouble in this matter lie not with Russia, whose tactics, I agree, were not very good, but in the occupation of the China seat in the United Nations by the Nationalist Government? Is it not time that the Chinese seat was taken from the Nationalist refugees?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, there is a good deal of manœuvring and counter-manœuvring, as the noble Lord knows, but what is gratifying about it, at least in the end, is that the United Nations has been increased by sixteen new countries.

Before coming to the main point that has been the basis of most of the speeches, I should like just to say one word—it will be a very brief one—to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who again raised the question of Cyprus in this connection. As regards the incident which he had read in the Press and to which he called the attention of the House, all I can say is that, the report having been printed, it is of course a matter for the War Office. I have made inquiries into the matter, and I am informed that although the War Office have no definite information yet they have called for a report. At this stage I cannot take the matter beyond that.

With regard to Lord Winster's question as to what was said by my right honourable friend concerning self-determination coming at sonic time, that matter was published in the Press, in Hansard and elsewhere. The noble Lord will not really expect me to inform the House on the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to our Ambassadors in Ankara or in Athens or to the Governor in Cyprus.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether a volte face of that description is not worth bringing to the attention of the Governments concerned and of the Governor in Cyprus?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I said I would not give the House any account of what instructions we had issued, and I also said that, plainly, anybody could read in the Press what had happened.

On the wider subject that has been discussed in most of the speeches this afternoon, our general relations with Russia, it is true—and it has come out in speeches to-day—that Russia still prides herself on being, and at the moment is set upon remaining, so far as she can, the great enigma in international affairs. The mystery with which she contrives to surround herself is, no doubt, a considerable asset in the propagation of the doctrines she wants to put over, and I believe it is true to say that for this purpose, from a geographical point of view, she is not unfavourably situated, for she can operate on interior lines and seek to drive at least a psychological salient, or series of salients, into the free world at those points in its defence which at any time may seem to her weakest. This is a very obvious reflection, but one which is often brought home to those who, in any degree, have to try to cope with the situation. Russia has the advantage that, by her mere system of government, changes of policy, however drastic and revolutionary they may be, can be made behind closed doors, from one moment to another, by a handful of people who are unaccountable to anybody and whose decision is certainly not liable to be questioned by those who have regard for their personal safety. They also have at their disposal, and do not hesitate to use, means which are effective to suppress public criticism or even discussion, except such discussion as they themselves may believe it advantageous to put out by broadcast or by the Press.

As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in opening this debate, we can all see that there ha; been a change in Russian policy since the first Geneva Conference, and I agree that it seemed to develop, or at any rate to intensify itself, after the temporary break in the second Geneva Conference, when Mt. Molotov went back to Moscow and later returned apparently in a considerably more rigid mood. So far as we are concerned, the reason for that must largely remain a matter for speculation. There are many possible theories I incline to that which commends itself to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson: that the Russians began to find that the "Geneva spirit" was maturing a little too fast, and that some of the satellites were showing signs of slight inebriation as a result of their draughts of the "Geneva spirit." Consequently it was necessary to bring them up short and to make clear to them that total abstention from any such heady doctrines was required of them.

They were pulled up short, and the chief evidence that that was certainly the main contributing factor is to be found in another matter discussed by noble Lords in their speeches to-day—that is, the almost complete refusal of the Russians to make any significant forward move on the third item of the Geneva agenda for the Foreign Ministers—relaxation of visits of many kinds. There has been some relaxation, but the terms, already quoted by the noble Lord, Lard Henderson, in which Mr. Molotov dealt with the general suggestions and proposals of the West in this regard, certainly towards the end of the conference, took on a quite unexpected degree of rigidity and unresponsiveness. All of us who follow these things thought that the second Geneva Meeting, which had to pass from the area of generalities to the area of particularities, was likely to be a very much more difficult operation than the Summit Meeting, because it was difficult for us to obliterate from our minds the thought that, though there had been certain changes of mood and approach after the death of Stalin, the position was still that never in any single instance that we could define had the Russians made any concession which caused them any disadvantage. They had held the position, from their point of view absolutely rigid in its essentials and had merely made demon- strations of concession which caused them no harm.

Though I do not want to deal in any detail with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I am bound to say that nothing in it surprised me more than his statement that the Russians had made substantial concessions in regard to the Austrian Treaty. When one turns one's mind back to the early stage of the Austrian Treaty and remembers the endless discussions at the Palais Rose in order to achieve even an agenda on which the Treaty could be discussed; and when or e recalls that at a later stage the Western Powers went so far as to say, "We will give away everything that you ask in this Treaty now, after all our discussion, we will make all the concessions you are asking—here is the Treaty as you have asked for it; now sign," and that the Russians immediately found another reason for evading responsibility to put their signature to a Treaty, I find myself entirely unable to understand the noble Lord's somewhat dubious thesis that the Russians made substantial concessions on the subject of Austria.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, the noble Marquess must agree that, in fact, they did give way and sign at Geneva this summer.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

That seems to me a typical Russian concession.

LORD CHORLEY

Does the noble Marquess deny that in fact Russian armies have left Austria? Is that not a very considerable gain?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, probably the Russians wished that it should be so. The history of the Austrian Treaty which the noble Lord Lord Chorley proceeded to give was, I feel, indicative of the somewhat personal approach which he makes to the problem with which he was dealing.

To revert to Geneva and the post-Geneva situation, the whole position was certainly not advanced on this third item —which, as I say, was the one on which we had thought that, however unrelenting the Russians might prove on the question of Germany and the question of disarmament, there might well be substantial progress. Yet when they came down at the second Geneva Meeting to deal with these matters it was found that there was no advance to be made. I think what my right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan said not long ago was probably right: that they were afraid of normal interchanges, and of the impressions that contact with the free world might make upon their people's minds and upon the minds of peoples of the satellites. Ideas, from their point of view, are marked "for export only." No ideas from outside are encouraged, or indeed permitted, to penetrate across the frontiers.

A good deal of comment has been made in the course of the debate to-day on the pros and cons of the visit next spring of Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Krushchev. The ethics and the politics of the visit have been argued by various noble Lords. May I point out one aspect of that visit which seems to have escaped certain writers in the Press and also certain noble Lords who have spoken to-day? Reference was made to "putting out flags," and a parallel was drawn with the recent visit of the President of Portugal. Do not let us make any mistake. There was never any suggestion that this should be a State visit: it is not in any sense a State visit. It is the case that an invitation was extended on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the Prime Minister to these two Russian leaders to pay a visit in their official capacity to this country. That is a very different thing from a State visit.

I do not think it is necessary to go, from the Government's point of view, into any detail about the position, because that remains the same as it has been since the visit was first mooted and the invitation accepted. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said recently in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 546, (No. 66), col. 2519]: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I extended an invitation to these visitors. I think that this country, with its broad democratic intelligence, would be able to handle any situation that might be created by any visitor of any country. That represents my right honourable friend's view as Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked whether this matter had been considered recently. Of course, in connection with the answer to this and other questions which have been put in another place, the whole matter was, naturally, assessed, and various factors were taken into account. Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Krushchev have been conducting these peregrinations in certain Eastern countries, and in the course of their wanderings they have no doubt done their best not only to set East against West but also to set East against East: by references to Kashmir, for the purpose of inflaming opinion in Pakistan, and by references to Pushtunistan during their sojourn in Kabul.

I am not going over the somewhat unedifying record of their public oratory in the course of their wanderings, because I think that in the long run—or even in the short run—the effect of these orations may prove to be not quite what they had intended when these pronouncements were made to the world. I think it probably has not dawned upon them that the strength of the Commonwealth is something a great deal more powerful than they had ever conceived. It would not, perhaps, enter into their minds that nations can come together voluntarily for peaceful purposes, and not under compulsion, and that they can value an association one with another just because that association is free. If they have learned anything from their observation of that aspect, the reaction which their speeches drew in those parts of the world may have justified the making of some of the speeches. And it will not be forgotten that the Prime Minister of India was at pains, during the period of their visit, to emphasise the importance he attached to the Commonwealth connection.

The Russian leaders have gone about those parts of the world preaching against colonialism, but apart altogether from the fact (which has already been commented upon) that talks on colonialism do not come very happily from Soviet leaders, do they really consider it a tribute to the intelligence of the Burmese or the Indians, or any of the other peoples of that part of the world, to be told that they are now suffering from a delusion that they are free and independent people, when in fact they are still in colonial shackles? I have seen a certain amount of those countries in the last years, and I have been increasingly struck by the friendship and the confidence which those countries at the present moment place in this country.

I do not believe it is true to say, as was said by one speaker to-day, that the prestige of this country is steadily deteriorating in Asia. I do not think that that represents in any way the actual state of affairs. The Burmese, for example, know better than to accept the sort of stuff which has been served up to them by these travellers in their midst. They know that they are independent; perhaps, after a first interval of doubt, they k low they can depend upon the friendship of the United Kingdom; and—if I may once more refer to this matter—anyone who has had the experience of attending, as I did only a few weeks ago, a meeting of the Committee of the Colombo Plan, knows that it bears no resemblance to truth to say that country is brushed aside as being no longer of any importance in the opinion of the Asian countries or that any other sentiment animates those countries towards this country than these of friendship and confidence.

It is true that a considerable Russian economic offensive may be impending at the present time. At the same time, I recall that as long ago as February, 1952, when I attended a meeting in Rangoon of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, the Russian delegates were very loud and very long in their protestations of what they were going to do by way of contributing capital goods for the benefit of the Asian countries. Three years have passed and the same protestations have been made, although in the interval the original protestations do not seem to have achieved any considerable fulfilment. It may be that this time matters will be different, but as the result of their earlier experience I funk that a certain scepticism has crept into the minds of the Asian countries about whether the Russian promises are ever likely to mature.

We have certainly learned one thing which the Russians do not yet seem to have learned about the people of Asia —that is, that they are neither children nor fools, but men in a world of men. When the Russians find out that, then they may find a better technique of dealing with them. The peoples of Asia are not less expert than the peoples of the West in sizing up who are their friends and who are not their friends, and where, in the long run, their best interests lie. For the moment, Russia is concentrating upon the Middle East and Asia. I do not seek for a moment to deny, or to minimise, the importance of the directions in which her policy seems to be moving, but it would be wrong to think that Her Majesty's Government are not alive to what is happening and are not making very definite and vigorous efforts in ways open to us to meet that danger and to defeat it.

In the discussion to-day there has been a certain note of gloom about the general international situation. I am not going to contend that at this juncture it wears a particularly promising appearance. Nevertheless, in these past four years I have seen a good many oscillations of the pendulum: at one moment things have looked encouraging; yet at another the pendulum has swung over to considerable discouragement. The important thing is that we should not relax cur attempts to face up to the problem with which we have to deal and to forestall, whenever we can, or, if we cannot fore-stall it, at least to grapple with the problem, with all the vigour at our command. The problem, whatever form it may take for the moment and in whatever direction it may at the moment turn, is essentially the same—that is, the preservation at all costs of the freedom of the free world.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, I rise to ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I would only say that we have had an interesting and useful debate, and I have this personal satisfaction: that one of my Motions has kept your Lordships' House sitting after the other place has risen.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.