§ 2.50 p.m.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the second Question of which I have given them Private Notice. It is as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of Mr. Khrushchev's statement on Soviet intentions regarding West Berlin, they will make a statement.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government, in concert with their Allies, have over the years made a number of comprehensive proposals for the just and equitable solution of the problem of Germany and Berlin, culminating in the Western Peace Plan presented at the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference in 1959. All these proposals have been rejected by the Soviet Government, who prefer instead to manufacture an artificial crisis for the purpose of gaining their own ends. We and our Allies have certain obligations in Germany, and we do not intend to betray them. Among these obligations is the preservation of the freedom of the people of West Berlin. The Soviet Government must come to realise that we intend to defend this, and that we cannot countenance proposals inconsistent with it. If they wish to discuss the issue with us, we are prepared to do so, but they must understand that it can be done only on the basis I have described.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Khrushchev, in his recent television and radio report of his talks with Mr. Kennedy, made the following statement:
Western Berlin will be a free city, free from all the results following the surrender of Hitler Germany and the resulting occupation rights.Does the noble Earl agree that there can be no unilateral abrogation or alteration 495 of the Four Power Agreement governing the status of Berlin? I welcome the noble Earl's reaffirmation that the Western Allies have no intention of sacrificing the free population of West Berlin. I take it that he would also have in mind that there is no question of surrendering our own rights of access to West Berlin. Will the noble Earl reaffirm that any change in the status or in the rights and obligations of the Four Powers can be made only by Four Power agreement? And would he agree that this position is an essential part of the basis for any new negotiations on Berlin to be successful?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, in answer to the first of the noble Lord's supplementary questions I would say this. The Soviet proposals for a free city, so far as we know them up to now, refer only to West Berlin. I am not advocating any change in the existing situation, but if there were to be a change, then I think it would have to apply to the Eastern as well as to the Western sector. Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about rights and whether they could be abrogated unilaterally. My answer to that must be, No. First of all, the Allies have a right to be in Western Berlin and, secondly, that right is surely reinforced by the wish of the people to have us. And so long as those two conditions hold, then I think we have a perfect right to stand where we are. Any negotiations that may take place about the future of Berlin, if there are any negotiations, must take account of three things. First of all, as I said, it is essential to preserve the right of the people of Berlin to choose their own way of life, which incidentally Mr. Khrushchev mentioned in his Aide Mémoire, though he contradicted himself in almost his next sentence; the right of the Allies to be in Berlin and the right of access to the city. If these three things are understood, then, as I have said in an earlier reply, we are always ready to talk about the future of Germany. But it must be clearly understood that these bases for negotiation hold.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that the points I have put are to emphasise the importance of standing for the rule of law?