HL Deb 09 February 1961 vol 228 cc500-10

3.19 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Henderson; namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the international situation.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, this debate was opened yesterday by my noble friend Lord Henderson in his usual inimitable manner. He conducted us on a world tour. He explained that he was unable to stop at every port, but the places at which he did stop he dealt with in a most interesting way. His speech was described by several noble Lords opposite as being restrained—I do not know whether that implied that he might have said more than he did. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who made a characteristic Liberal speech in which he said that there was a good deal to be said for both sides.

He was followed by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, who joined my noble friend Lord Henderson as a fellow-traveller. They went on their journey together. The noble Earl spoke, as he always does, with great charm and persuasiveness, a combination which is most difficult to resist. Other noble Lords extended the debate to places which were not on the schedule. But I do not propose to follow them this afternoon, except to say this. If the information which we have been given in the Press about the results of the deliberations in Southern Rhodesia is correct (I must make that qualification), I feel that the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, and his predecessor, if I may include him, are to he congratulated on a very fine achievement. It certainly looks as if they have done a good job, and I can only express the hope, speaking for myself but I am sure also for most of your Lordships, that Mr. Macleod will have a similar success in the courageous efforts he is making far arriving at a settlement in Northern Rhodesia.

In opening the debate on the second day, I feel that the greatest service I can render your Lordships' House is to comment frankly, and I hope sincerely, on the Government statement made by the noble Earl, expressing both agreement and disagreement where appropriate. The noble Earl defined the basic purposes of British foreign policy, as did the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in winding up last night, and I have no quarrel with the three purposes that were put forward. But I should like to make a reservation on one statement. The noble Earl said that one of their purposes was [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 228 (No. 36) col. 432]; …to use our writ and influence, wherever they may run, to establish law and order as the only foundation for world peace. I would ask him: where does he think our -writ runs to-day except in this country? Is it really the business of this country to-day to set itself up as responsible for maintaining law and order throughout the world? Surely that is reminiscent of the Pax Britannica, to which the noble Earl referred with such nostalgic feelings. To-day it is through the United Nations that we maintain peace and order in the world. We have no personal responsibility.

I should like to say a word about the use of our influence as one of our basic purposes. The noble Earl elaborated this point, referring to our experience through the centuries, which he said (col. 434): makes it possible for us, not only in Asia and in Africa but in the councils of the world, to exercise our, influence very often decisively in the cause of world peace. He went on to say that order and stability…and peace are the first of British interests. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke in similar terms and approved words used by a former American Ambassador, in which he praised "daring and dissent" and greeted "healthy controversy". The noble Marquess, while admitting that our direct power has greatly diminished, said (col. 488) that he firmly believed that British influence is still very great and unique and that if we are courageous and frank we exercise an influence which may well be of far greater significance and value than was ever our absolute power. My Lords, I have quoted these extracts from the speeches of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess at some length because, in my view, they are the keystone of the discussion on foreign affairs. They are eloquent and admirable precepts; but they are valueless, and may even be regarded by other people as insincere, if they are not carried into effect to the best of our ability. It is deeds and not words that count to-day in the councils of the nations. We must speak with clarity and decision, and speak and act as we ourselves honestly think right, and not to please or appease either our Allies or our opponents. So I want to quote a number of instances where I think that in the past we have actually done just that. We have not spoken or voted as we thought right, but have done both of these things either to please our Allies or to appease our opponents. Therefore, we have fallen very much short of these admirable precepts.

Let me take, first, China. The noble Earl, Lord Home, having made his reservations about the misconduct of China, both in Tibet and as regards India—and I may say that this misconduct applies to a great many other nations as well as to China—said this (col. 438): Nevertheless, we have always felt, and we feel now, that the facts of international life require that Communist China should be seated in the United Nations. As the noble Lord said, we can make no progress with disarmament unless China is there. The House will mark the words, "we have always felt and we feel now". That feeling has not been expressed in the past at the United Nations. Whenever we had an opportunity, we voted either against their inclusion or in favour of the deferment of the consideration of the case of China. And it is very difficult to reconcile this very clear and definite statement of the Foreign Secretary yesterday with the actions of our Government in the past.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords. I must interrupt the noble Lord. If he will read a little further on in what I said yesterday, he will see why we voted that way.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I am not suggesting that we have done this irresponsibly, but the words which the noble Earl used would lead us, and quite rightly lead us, to support the inclusion of China. And in my view, these words are inconsistent with our voting against, whatever the reasons may be. I would ask the noble Earl whether it is the Government's intention in future to support the inclusion of Communist China in the United Nations.

I would go on to refer to a number of cases where we have actually abstained from voting, not necessarily, in my view, on the merits of matters before the United Nations, but because of other circumstances such as I indicated earlier. In the Session of 1957 we abstained on no fewer than six occasions. One of them was on a motion relating to human rights, which was approved by the Assembly by 65 votes to 0. There were 13 abstentions, and we were one of them. There was a further resolution on the subject of scholarships to students from non-self-governing territories passed by the Assembly by 74 votes to 0, when there were 3 abstentions, and we were one of the 3. In each Session in 1958 and 1959 there were six occasions when we abstained from voting.

I suggest that if we are to give a lead, as we pride ourselves on being in a position to do, on the basis of our vast experience, then that cannot be done by our abstention on numerous occasions from voting. I do not want to go into the merits of each of these occasions—there may or may not have been something to be said for abstention —but you do not give a lead by abstaining from voting. The impression given is either that we do not know our own mind, or that we do know our own mind but are afraid to express it by voting. That is, I am afraid, the impression we are giving. By not voting when the occasion arises, we gain no respect either from the side we support or from the side that we oppose.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Home, quite rightly, in my view, linked the foreign policy with our economic position. One of the vital questions that is troubling us to-day is that of the economic and political position of Europe. We have, as everybody now knows, the Common Market and we have the European Free Trade Association. It is not my purpose to discuss the policy on these matters in a Foreign Affairs debate, but it is something that has now been under consideration for a very long time. I realise that there are difficulties: I recognise, as we all do, our position in the Commonwealth, and also the difficulty of relating entry into the Common Market with our agricultural position. But these are difficulties which will not lessen as time goes on; indeed, they will increase, because positions tend to become solidified. And if ever the time should come when we wanted to go into the Common Market we might find it far more difficult to join than we should to-day.

I would ask the Government to make up their mind, one way or the other, whether they propose to join the Common Market—assuming that they still have the opportunity to do so. It is rumoured in the Press that there is disagreement in the Cabinet on the subject. Well, it would not be the first time that the Cabinet had disagreed; and, for my part, I would respect them much more if there were differences of opinion, as there are at the present time in other places very close to me. Differences of opinion are not in themselves a bad thing. But at the end of the day you have to make up your mind, and I would urge the Government to do this as quickly as possible do not want to elaborate on this aspect. I think I have given sufficient examples to indicate that if we pare to fulfil our mission in the world— and I believe that we have a mission; we have, as has been said vast experience, and we also have an objective temperament which enables us to play a part, if we choose to do so, in world councils—we must have the courage of our convictions and must Abe in the position of making up our minds and not constantly sitting on the fence

I turn now to the question of the Congo, which was mentioned yesterday by nearly every speaker. I thought that my noble friend Lord Henderson made his position abundantly clear, but I was not too clear as to what was the policy of the Government on this matter and what they intended to do. I understood the noble Earl to say that he favoured a United Federal State of Congo. I was not aware that we had actually committed ourselves to supporting a Federation; but if that is Government policy, we know where we are. I feel that if we could get a settlement on the basis of a Federation there would be no serious objection among any section of our people here.

The noble Earl also said that there must be no imposed settlement, either by the United Nations or by any other authority. Here I think he was somewhat at variance with his noble friend Lord Birdwood, who I gather thought it was the business of the United Nations to impose a settlement if one could not otherwise be arrived at.

LORD BIRDWOOD

What I meant to convey was that if the normal channels of negotiation failed, then the United Nations trusteeship would have been agreed to within the United Nations and could be imposed.

LORD SILKIN

I do not think the noble Lord is really differing from my interpretation of what he said. Then I understood the noble Earl, Lord Home, to say that the United Nations force is to co-operate in the reconstitution of the Congolese Army, which would function after the United Nations forces had withdrawn. All those things are perfectly clear and understandable, and I do not think they would arouse any particular objection. But what the noble Earl did not tell us was with whom the United Nations are to negotiate. That is the key to the whole problem. There are Mr. Kasavubu, Mr. Tshombe, Mr. Mobotu and Mr. Lumumba, who are all rival contestants for power in the Congo. One has to do business with one or all of them, and we have to make up our minds. I feel that we on this side should prefer—in fact, as I understand it we have advocated it—that all the contestants should meet and that the United Nations should endeavour to reconcile them and get them to work together.

I should like to know whether that is the policy of the Government. Up to now they seem to have backed Mr. Kasavubu alone; they have recognised him, but nobody else. I appreciate that Mr. Lumumba may be a person who might be objectionable to this country, because he is supported by the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, he commands a great deal of support in the Congo, and we are not in a position to overrule the views of the Congolese themselves. The ideal is that they should be allowed to decide for themselves. I should have thought that the right solution was that all political prisoners should be released and that they should have the opportunity of getting together and discussing what is to be the future of the Congo I should be interested to know what are the views of the Government on this admittedly rather tricky point.

Now I wish to touch upon something which I think has not been touched on at all in the present debate, and that is the position of Germany. Germany today is the largest and most important military Power in Western Europe. Those of us who accepted the inevitability of German rearmament, did so on the basis that German arms should not exceed brigade strength without integration, and so on. There were very limiting and restrictive conditions. These no longer apply, and to-day there is under German control and command the most powerful force in Europe, with nuclear tactical weapons, and with discussions going on as to the possession by Germany of further nuclear weapons.

There seems to be no doubt that at the present time Germany is creating a feeling of tension in Central Europe with her outspoken and increasing demands for the return of her Eastern territories. Large meetings have been held and addressed by Cabinet Ministers encouraging German refugees—or people who were formerly refugees, belonging to the Refugee Party—to urge the return of her lost territories. I have had the opportunity of reading a good number of those speeches textually, presented to me not by opponents of the German regime but by Germans on behalf of Germany itself I admit that if those speeches are read carefully one can find expressions in them which say that they will take no action themselves other than by peaceful means to recover these territories. I say, quite frankly, that I accept this assurance from the present regime. I am quite satisfied that neither Chancellor Adenaeur nor members of his Government would attempt to do anything at the present time by violence. But one must realise that Governments do not last for ever; they change. By putting pressure on public opinion—because these speeches are addressed to enormous numbers of people—you can create an inflammatory state of affairs which could be dangerous. At any rate it is not healthy that this state of tension and fear should exist.

LORD BIRDWOOD

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord one moment and ask a question? Does the noble Lord think that the alternative Government to Chancellor Adenauer's which would be a Government presumably under Willy Brandt, would be more likely to raise tension on this matter than the existing Government?

LORD SILKIN

I was not looking at the immediate alternative Government; I was looking to the position that might arise in perhaps five or ten years' time. We have had experience. We know that you may have a democratic Government to-day but a totally different form of Government in ten years' time. It is that that I fear. Therefore, while the last thing I want to do is to say anything provocative about Germany, because their feelings are perfectly understandable, I think the fact remains that it would be wrong to let things remain as they are.

In the course of the speeches which I read, the Germans talk as if the German-Polish relations began with the eviction of the German population from their former territories; that this was the start of the whole trouble. Of course, we know that it was nothing of the kind. We know that it began with German aggression of Poland—we have all accepted that. It goes even deeper than that, and this was merely one step in the conflict between the two countries. One can always prove oneself right in history to one's own satisfaction if one starts the argument at any particular point; and by starting the argument at the point of eviction of 6 million people, and ignoring the fact that many millions of Poles were massacred, the Germans can create a grievance.

May I say, in passing, on this question that I am impressed with the fact—and I think it right to say so—that Germany, in the last year or two, has undertaken a policy of re-educating its young people. Hitherto, they have been rather slow in letting the younger generations know exactly what happened in the days of Hitler. I understand that the present policy is to be perfectly frank and candid and to hide nothing from them. They even produce films, where they are available, showing what happened in the days of Hitler, especially during the war. That I feel, is a very healthy sign.

Nevertheless, there are things that I think we could do, assuming that we have the influence to do so. We know that Germany is refusing to recognise Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Eastern Germany, and so on. Nevertheless, they are doing considerable trade with them. In fact, I believe that the trade which is being done with Eastern Germany is very large indeed. Could we not use our influence to recommend to Germany that these countries should be recognised for the purpose, at any rate, of having diplomatic relations? It could be done and would be done, of course, without prejudice to any claims that Germany might put forward at the subsequent Peace Treaty negotiations. I am sure that if we could do that, the atmosphere would be much relieved.

Finally, I want to say a few words about our relations with the United Nations and disarmament. I think they are very much interconnected. My noble friend Lord Attlee referred to the experiment of creating a substantial United Nations force from separate countries, and my noble friend Lord Henderson mentioned the fact that this force looked as if it might be disintegrated by a number of countries withdrawing from it. All this illustrates the difficulties of the United Nations functioning at the present time. There is also the problem of finance. A good many countries are not contributing to the cost of maintaining this United Nations force, and there is a great danger of the force disintegrating through the fact that there is not the money available to pay for it. Furthermore, there is the fact that repeatedly member nations of the United Nations defy the decisions of U.N.O., even decisions which are carried without any opposition, and there is no means of enforcing those decisions.

And, of course, we have the morass into which disarmament discussions have gone, and the talks at Geneva, which have now lasted for a number of years, on the control of nuclear weapons, and so on. It looks as if there is something in what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said yesterday, that the United Nations is not functioning very effectively. At the same time there is the crippling cost of arms to all nations which is now producing, or threatens to produce in the future, a most critical situation. As a result of these heavy arms the threat to peace is very grave, even though it is alleged that the very fact that they are heavy in itself creates a deterrent.

I believe that we can give hope for the future only by some new thinking. There are many people in this country, including a number of members of the Government, including the Prime Minister himself, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House, who have at various times and in different degrees recognised that the only real hope for world peace, for the alleviation of our burdens and for the opportunity of helping less developed people is to create a world authority with an executive which would act as a world court dealing with differences between peoples and adjudicating on them and having at their disposal an international police force internationally recruited. It would follow from this that no nation other than the world authority would have arms or forces except for the preservation of internal order.

There are many outside Great Britain who take that view, too. This policy can be achieved by an amendment of the Charter of the United Nations. It would not involve any substantial diminution of national sovereignty; the policy could be established while maintaining national sovereignty. It is said that this is a worthwhile and very fine policy but it is idealistic, it is visionary. Of course it is visionary until somebody, some nation, has the courage to take it up and put it forward. And I could hope that it would be this country that would take the responsibility of bringing this matter into the realm of practical politics, having a discussion and bringing it up to the United Nations and testing the feeling there.

My Lords, I have spoken long enough, but I felt a debate of this kind is of no value unless one expresses views which are not always in harmony with the views of the Government. In dealing with international affairs one has no desire to make difficulties or to exaggerate or exacerbate differences of opinion, but I feel that the most helpful contribution one can make is not merely to say "Hear, hear!" but to state those points which we think call for an explanation and on which we feel the Government have not acted entirely up to their own professions. I hope the result of this debate will be of value to the Government and enable them to carry on the work which is being done along the lines which the noble Earl set before himself, with a view to establishing and maintaining a state of peace and prosperity.