Prime Minister's Visit to U.S.A.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

I think there has been a general desire that with this debate I should give a fuller account of the talks which I had at Washington and supplement the fairly full report that was given in the communiqué. I should like at the outset to recall the circumstances in which I decided to pay a visit to the United States of America. It will be recalled that the House debated foreign affairs on 29th and 30th November, and that just at that time there were grave developments in Korea. I think there was in this country, and, perhaps, not only in this country, a good deal of anxiety as to where events were leading us, and the course of the debate indicated that the present time would be opportune for me to pay a visit to the President of the United States, which I had had in contemplation for some time.

I accordingly made my suggestion to President Truman that I should visit him in order that we might in an intimate way take a wide survey of the problems which face us today. I think that that suggestion was welcomed; and the President, although beset with other preoccupations and engagements, very readily undertook to receive me. Let me say that. I did not expect that the result of this meeting would lead to any spectacular action or any dramatic announcement. What I hoped for, and what, I think, was achieved, was a closer understanding of the points of view of our two Governments.

When I arrived in Washington on Monday, 4th December, the President in person. accompanied by Mr. Acheson, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Harriman and other high officials, welcomed me; and throughout the talks, both in my meetings with the President and his advisers, and in other meetings that were held between officials at various levels, the attitude of the American Administration could not have been more cordial; they could not have shown themselves more anxious to be helpful. We discussed in a full, frank and friendly way the general background 1351 of our policy and our attitude to the main problems which confront us in international affairs.

I knew very well when I started on my journey that, like the people of this country, the people of America are profoundly concerned with the preservation of world peace. This was amply confirmed by all that I saw in that country. I should like to make it clear at the outset that my talks with President Truman were concerned with the relations of our two countries and the contribution which our two countries could make to the common cause. It was not for us, when military events were moving so rapidly in Korea, to try to take day to day decisions on the problems which confront the United Nations. It was not for us to prejudge the conclusions of our friends and Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Nor, of course, was it for me, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to attempt to speak on behalf of our fellow members of the Commonwealth. But I have naturally been in close contact with the Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth on these matters, and I conferred with their representatives both in this country and in Washington.

We felt, as we sat there in Washington, that our task was to contribute to building a just and lasting peace. That is the objective of both Governments. On the Tuesday, I was given a very full report on the military situation, and, subsequently, later developments were outlined to us. While I was away, the Minister of Defence made a statement in this House, I think on 7th December, which dealt with operations up to that date. I should like to give the House the latest available information.

There is no doubt that the United Nations Forces met with a very serious reverse. They suffered very heavily in both men and equipment. But the situation in the last few days has considerably improved, though, of course, there may be ups and downs. During the past week the United Nations have continued their orderly withdrawal in the west, with virtually no contact with the Chinese Communist Forces, and are in the process of stabilising their positions in the area of the 38th Parallel. It would appear that the reconstituted North Korean Army is now being infiltrated to the front line in 1352 order to probe our positions while the Chinese Armies regroup in the rear. A significant feature of the past few days has been the movement south from Pyongyang towards our lines of some 20,000 to 30,000 refugees. Many of these are probably soldiers trying to infiltrate into our positions.

By now the United Nations Forces which had been cut off in the Chosin Reservoir area, including our own 41st Independent Royal Marine Commandos, have safely reached the bridgehead of Hungnam and are being evacuated by sea. As already reported in the Press, United Nations Forces in this area have suffered heavy casualties. There is no doubt that the intense air support they received greatly assisted them to fight their way out in face of the tremendous odds against them. The 27th British Commonwealth Brigade and the British 29th Brigade, who played a prominent part in the rearguard action covering the withdrawal of the 8th Army, are now being withdrawn into reserve in our new defensive positions.

Though future Chinese intentions are not clear, they are continuing to move reinforcements of troops and supplies over the Yalu River. It is evident that on the Western front the southward movement of the large mass of Chinese forces has been greatly hampered by the lack of transport, limited road net and air bombardment of road and rail bridges and supply lines. For those reasons the Chinese Armies, while continuing to thrust forward with patrol elements, have not been capable of exploiting their initial success since the early days of their counter-offensive.

Chinese losses are reported to have been extremely heavy. In the Chosin Reservoir area alone, their casualties have been estimated at 25,000. The Chinese supply problem has been most acute for them in this area. Many captured Chinese are suffering from severe frostbite and have stated that they had had no food for five days. The feeling at General MacArthur's Headquarters is that they are confident that the United Nations' Forces can retain a firm hold in the peninsula. It will be realised that the military situation during the past ten days has been fluid, and that it was against this changing background that our talks took place.

Our first meetings were naturally concerned with the Far Eastern situation, 1353 and the communiqué brings out very clearly both the points of agreement and the points of difference between the two Governments. But it would be a mistake to over-emphasise those differences.

We are at one in our support of the action of the United Nations in resisting aggression. Both Governments are profoundly desirous of preventing the war from spreading. Both seek to reach a settlement in the Far East and indeed in the whole of Asia. We in this country have great interests in Asia, where there are peoples who, under our care, are marching on the road to full self-government. We are united in the British Commonwealth of Nations with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and with the southern Dominions who border on the Far East. We have our friends in the Middle East. We have long and friendly relations with the peoples of Asia, not least the Chinese; and it has been our consistent policy to meet the just claims of the Asiatic nations to be dealt with on terms of full equality. We have taken a realist view.

When it became clear that the present rulers of China were in effective occupation of that country we gave them our recognition. We believe it is right that Chinese representation in the United Nations should belong to the present Government of China. We have been working for this, and I believe that but for the Korean episode this end would have been achieved.

I stated our position in the course of our meetings. Korea is essentially a United Nations problem. Its outcome will have an important effect on the authority and prestige of the United Nations. It is vital that that authority should be maintained, and it is, therefore, of supreme importance that any settlement should be arrived at under United Nations auspices. As we are all agreed that an extension of the conflict must be avoided, there must sooner or later be a settlement, and the sooner that settlement can be arrived at the better, to bring to an end the sufferings of the people of Korea and to avoid further casualties.

These matters are now being considered at the United Nations, and I should like to weigh my words very carefully. His Majesty's Government firmly believe that the first step in the solution of the Korean problem is to bring the 1354 fighting to a very early end. They have, therefore, given their support to a resolution put forward in the United Nations by a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries which provides for a cease fire. That motion was carried by an overwhelming majority in the Political Committee. It might give food for thought to some of those innocents who are apt to be led astray to know that the only opposition to this attempt to bring the fighting to an end was by the Soviet and its satellites, who are talking of peace.

It is the hope of His Majesty's Government that the Chinese and North Koreans will respond to this initiative and thus bring the conflict to an end. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the statesmanlike initiative of these Asiatic and Middle Eastern countries, and in particular to the special efforts made by the Government of India and their representative at the United Nations. I would deeply regret it if anything said here should in any way impede the success of this initiative. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the Minister of State and Sir Gladwyn Jebb, who have taken a prominent part in all these discussions.

In our attitude towards the longer-term problem our objectives rest on the Cairo Declaration, which was agreed upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We seek a free and independent Korea. Our ultimate aim is a Korea living on terms of peace and friendship with its neighbours and with the rest of the world. The Cairo Declaration, which was agreed on by all Korea's neighbours, expressed acceptance of two principles: non-aggression and no territorial ambitions. It is for the Chinese Government to make it clear that they accept these principles, for their recent actions have thrown doubt upon this.

The question of Formosa, which was also dealt with in the Cairo Declaration, is one of the most difficult of all the problems facing us in the Far East. There are mutual fears and suspicions to be got rid of before a solution can be found. It is right that everyone should try to understand the point of view both of the Chinese rulers and also of the United States of America. Until China shows by her action that she is not obstructing the fulfilment of the Cairo Declaration in respect of Korea and accepts the basic 1355 principle of the Cairo Declaration, it will be difficult to reach a satisfactory solution.

The President and I agree that consideration of this difficult problem by the United Nations would be helpful. In the Far East, as in other parts of the world, there are two courses which are open to us in dealing with disputes and difficulties which may arise. Either we must try to negotiate a settlement based on the acceptance of normal standards of international practice and on the principles and obligations of the Charter of the United Nations, or, on the other hand, we shall find ourselves drifting inevitably towards war. There is no middle course.

In applying this basic principle to the fact of Chinese intervention in Korea and to the facts of Chinese behaviour there and elsewhere in the last few months, His Majesty's Government believe that a solution must be sought by means of peaceful negotiations. We may seek a solution; we shall not find one unless, on the Chinese side, there is equal determination to use negotiation rather than force—to accept normal standards of international behaviour, to accept the obligations and principles of the United Nations' Charter. If there is such willingness on the Chinese side, His Majesty's Government are confident that solutions can be found compatible with the principles of the Charter. Nothing short of willingness on both sides to accept the principles of the Charter and to use peaceful means for the settlement of disputes can prevent perpetuation of international friction which, in turn, may lead to a breakdown of the United Nations and perhaps even to widespread hostilities.

I should like to say a word about the arrangements for liaison between the American administration and ourselves in Washington. I should like to pay tribute to the really admirable work which is being done by our representatives in Washington, both by Lord Tedder on the military side and by His Majesty's Ambassador, Sir Oliver Franks, on the political side. Many of their contacts are, of course, informal. They depend for their success very largely on the friendly relations these men and their colleagues can establish with their American opposite numbers. I have high hopes that these valuable interchanges will continue, and indeed, that the relationships which 1356 they have fostered will grow ever closer: but it would, to my mind, be a mistake to try to formalise these arrangements. Anything more formal might very well be misunderstood, and it would, I think, destroy some of the essential features on which their present success depends.

The regular day-to-day work of liaison which is carried on in this way is supplemented and reinforced by the visits which Members of the Government have been able to pay to the United States. The Foreign Secretary, as the House knows, attended the Tripartite Meeting of Foreign Ministers, and also the meeting of the Atlantic Council held in New York in September when the General Assembly of the United Nations was meeting. The Minister of Defence has taken part in meetings of the Defence Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers in Washington, and, finally, there have been my own discussions with the President. Direct discussion across the table will always do more to clear up misunderstandings than the exchange of formal communications. The close working relationships which grow up in this way will do far more to harmonise our policy and actions than any written agreements about consultation.

I think that here perhaps lies the answer to some of the doubts and misgivings which have been expressed on two important topics: first of all, the control of military operations in Korea, and, secondly, the use of atomic weapons. On the first of these topics, the House will remember what was said by the Foreign Secretary in the debate on foreign affairs at the end of November. He made it clear that it is for the United States Government who provide the unified command in Korea to ensure that no military action which had political implications should be taken without appropriate consultations with other governments. The House will recall that the Foreign Secretary gave an assurance that there had in fact been such consultation. As a result of my talks with the President, I am completely satisfied that the fullest weight will be given to the views of His Majesty's Government before instructions are issued to the United Nations Commander which have political implications.

Questions have also been asked about the atomic weapon and the procedure by which the decision to use it will be reached if that ever became necessary. It is 1357 generally known that there was a wartime partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada in the development of the atomic weapon.

§ Mr. Churchill

It was not limited.

§ The Prime Minister

The nature of the arrangements which we made in war-time and the nature of the agreement between the Governments have never been revealed. It is also public knowledge that the co-operation between the countries continues for certain purposes in the atomic energy field. For example, the results of a Tripartite Conference on the declassification of secret material were recently made known.

The position of the United States Administration in many of these matters is now regulated by legislation enacted in the United States since the end of the war. But it was in the spirit and against the background of that partnership that I was able to raise the vital question of the use of the atomic weapon, and it was in the same spirit and against the same background that I received assurances which I consider to be perfectly satisfactory.

§ Mr. Churchill

We do not know what the assurances are.

§ The Prime Minister

In our talks the President and I considered Far Eastern problems in the perspective of the world situation. We are concerned with the preservation of peace not only in the Far East but in South East Asia, in the Middle East and in Europe.

The Government of the United States despite their concern with Far Eastern events are fully conscious of the need for defence against possible aggression in other areas. They recognise how vital is the defence of Europe. We discussed and reached complete agreement on Atlantic defence. We agreed that integrated forces for the defence of the Atlantic community must be established in Europe and that a Supreme Commander should be appointed as soon as possible. We agreed also that it was urgently necessary to increase Western defence beyond its present level. These matters and the question of a German contribution to her own defence in common with the rest of Western Europe have all been under discussion in London, 1358 Washington, and Paris for the last three months.

The North Atlantic Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers are meeting at Brussels on Monday and Tuesday of next week, when the effect of the implementation of the principles agreed upon by us in Washington will be fully considered. In view of these meetings I would prefer not to go into details now, but I am confident that the decisions taken will reflect the sense of urgency which inspired my talks in Washington, and will bring us nearer to what we hope to attain—a Western world strong enough to resist aggression, and therefore to prevent aggression and to preserve peace. Meanwhile, we shall neglect no opportunity of possible action to remove, by agreement, the differences which are disturbing the international scene and threatening world peace.

In his statements in the House on 13th and 29th November, the Foreign Secretary explained the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Soviet Government's proposal for a meeting of the Four Powers to discuss the demilitarisation of Germany. Since he last spoke, a meeting of Ambassadors of the three Western Powers has been held in Paris and agreement has been reached on the draft of a reply to the Soviet Government. This draft is now under consideration by the three Governments. It would not be right that I should enter into details about its contents at this stage. But I can say that it is in close accord with the views of His Majesty's Government, as explained by the Foreign Secretary in his earlier statements, and that it reflects the common desire of the three Governments to examine all the possibilities of a fruitful discussion with the Soviet Government such as would offer a real prospect of removing the underlying causes of the prevailing world tension. His Majesty's Government are much gratified by the identity of views between the three Western Powers which was revealed in the discussions in Paris on this very important matter.

To return to our talks. Having reached agreement on defence matters, the President and I turned to the consideration of the economic implications of the increased armaments on which we were agreed. It was clearly recognised that the needs of 1359 defence would call for very difficult economic adjustments in both our countries, and, indeed, in other countries as well. It was fully appreciated that a healthy civilian economy is a necessary basis for adequate defence. Failure to maintain a sound economy would, in fact, defeat our whole purpose of building up the strength of the democracies. An aspect of this matter to which we devoted much attention was the supply and utilisation of raw materials.

There is already heavy pressure on certain raw materials, and we have been feeling a great deal of anxiety about our supplies. But the demands for raw materials for defence must be considered in relation to essential civilian requirements. In the course of our discussions, we pointed out how vital this question was to the United Kingdom, whose economy is based on the import of raw materials and food and the export of finished goods to pay for them. Of course, this is well understood by the Administration in Washington, but it is quite difficult for people who live in a great continent with abundant supplies of raw materials, such as America, to realise just what is the economic position of Great Britain.

In our discussions, we were concerned both with the immediate situation and with the need for co-ordinated action for the future in order to avoid dislocation so far as possible, and to enable us to prepare for difficulties before they are encountered. On the immediate position, we stated that the United Kingdom was faced with certain critical shortages which were likely to interfere with our production almost at once, notably zinc and sulphur. We found that the United States were also facing similar difficulties, but they fully understood our position, and they undertook immediately to see what help could be given us to meet this emergency. I very much hope that, as a result, we shall avoid the worst dangers which were threatening us in this regard. But in this field we ourselves can help the United States, and we undertook to continue discussions with them on the problems that are causing them immediate concern.

Looking to the future, we found their thinking was proceeding on very much the same lines, and the result of our talks 1360 was most satisfactory. We both recognised that raw materials are just as vital to the life of all other free countries as they are to ourselves, and that these problems therefore cannot be solved by the United States and the United Kingdom acting alone. The first essential is obviously to increase supplies wherever, and as fast as, possible. We have agreed on a joint examination of this problem with a view to urgent action in cooperation with other countries, but we cannot expect that the shortages now confronting us can be quickly or easily overcome by expansion of supplies—that must take some time.

We have to face the fact that over a considerable period there will have to be an equitable sharing out of what is available. That sharing out should be in accordance with the two principles of giving priority to urgent defence requirements and of maintaining healthy civilian economies. That is a hard problem, but we have agreed to work together in the fullest co-operation towards its solution. Before the visit to Washington, there had been some discussions on this question, both in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But the problem is a much wider one, since our partners in the Commonwealth and our friends in other parts of the world are all deeply concerned both as producers and consumers. We have, however, a great wealth of experience derived from the last war to help us to solve this problem, and I believe we shall solve it.

After the conclusion of my talks in Washington, I went to New York, and there I met the President of the Assembly of the United Nations, Mr. Entezam, and the Secretary General, Mr. Trygve Lie. I also had an opportunity of discussing matters with Sir Gladwyn Jebb and with my Ministerial colleagues, and of meeting the representatives there of the Commonwealth.

As the House knows, I went on from there to visit Canada, where I had the pleasure of meeting the Prime Minister, Mr. St. Laurent, and his Cabinet colleagues. I was able to discuss very fully with them the subject matter of my talks in Washington, and there was helpful discussion on the official level of particular matters, especially action on this problem of raw materials. As always, 1361 I found our Canadian friends most helpful and co-operative, and we found our views generally in complete harmony. It will be realised, of course, that the Canadian Government stands in a very special position in these matters because of her partnership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and her very close relations with the United States.

I was particularly glad to have had this talk with President Truman, in view of the fact that early in January we shall be welcoming the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at a meeting here in London. I shall therefore be able to enter into these discussions with the views of the United States Administration fresh in my mind. Throughout these difficult times we have kept in close touch with our fellow members of the Commonwealth. It is an enormous advantage to us that we are able to bring to bear on world problems the viewnoints of our fellow members of the Commonwealth. The knowledge thus gained is of the greatest help in enabling us to form right judgments on difficult problems with which we have to deal. Especially when we are dealing with the problems of Asia, it is very valuable to have the views of the Prime Ministers of India, Pakistan and Ceylon.

In talking of international affairs, I cannot forbear referring to the great loss sustained by New Zealand and the Commonwealth by the death of Mr. Peter Fraser. I recall his steadfastness during the war. He was a true representative of his country in his loyalty and readiness to give everything for the common cause. I recall his wise counsel in times of peace, when he met here his fellow Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth. I, too, have lost in him a very close personal friend. I am sure the House will join with me in sympathy with the people of New Zealand and his relatives in their loss.

In conclusion, may I once again say how vital to the preservation of world peace is close co-operation between this country and the United States. Nothing would please the enemies of democracy more than to see us estranged. There are mischief makers in both countries. Some people here constantly suggest that Britain is a subservient follower of the United States. There are people in America who suggest that the United States is misled 1362 by the clever diplomacy of Britain, They are both wrong. The United Kingdom and the United States are found acting in concert, because they are both nurtured in freedom and democracy. They draw their moral strength from the same sources. The people of both countries have the same profound desire for peace. If my visit has done anything to increase our mutual understanding it will not have been in vain.

§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I hasten to associate myself wholeheartedly with the tribute which the Prime Minister has paid to Mr. Peter Fraser. His part in the war was in every way worthy of the country he represented and of the magnificent New Zealand Divisions which served with honour in every field.

We are all very glad to see that the military situation for the time being in Korea has somewhat improved. I hope also that there is truth in the reports that a measure of censorship is being established over the despatches from the front or from Tokio by the war correspondents of all the United Nations. I should think most of us agree with General Robertson's protest upon this point. When one sees set forth day after day the exact position, numbers, condition and intentions of the United Nations troops, very often unit by unit, one cannot but feel that it is hardly fair to the soldiers who are fighting that the enemy should be presented with such complete intelligence, whereas so little seems to be known by us about the other side, and such a large measure of ignorance prevails, among the general public at least, about the enemy's disposition, strength and movements. Indeed, the wildest estimates are given on high authority only to be contradicted and reversed a few days later.

One instance, a small one, but not without significance, particularly struck me. A Centurion tank was damaged and left behind. This was immediately published and its importance emphasised. All the secrets were published of the latest British tank. Thus this vehicle, left behind among great numbers of no doubt other broken down vehicles, and in all the litter of retreat amid the snow, acquired instantly, in the enemy's eyes, an exceptional significance. I was very glad to read—I hope it is true—that it had been successfully destroyed from the air. That 1363 would have been a very good tale to tell if true, after it had happened, but why was it necessary to attract the enemy's attention to this vehicle beforehand. That seems to me a particular illustration. We really must have tighter control over what is published. We all seek to prevent and limit aggression, and one of the additional deterrents which we might impose upon the enemy's aggression would be to tell them that if it goes on much longer we shall cut them off from these invaluable supplies of information.

The Prime Minister's visit to Washington has done nothing but good. The question we all have to consider this afternoon in the House of Commons is, how much good. The Prime Minister spoke of the importance of renewing the series of meetings between the President and the Prime Minister which had taken place during the war and since the war. We all agree with that. We all agree with the advantages of direct discussion to which the Prime Minister has just referred.

I must say it seems to me that five years is rather a long interval, and the decision when it came, was very suddenly taken. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) spoke on 29th November and urged that we should have stronger representation at Washington at the highest level. I endorsed this when I spoke the next day. I did not wish to appear to reflect any more than he did, in the slightest degree, upon our excellent Ambassador in Washington, and I used the particular phrase, Ministerial representation. That very evening we were told that the Prime Minister was going. During the afternoon there was some excitement caused in the House by the accounts of Mr. Truman's interview with the Press which appeared on the tape. But I understand that this was not the reason that led to the Prime Minister's decision to go and that this was taken earlier in the day. Certainly the decision was very hastily arrived at, after an interval of five years.

Many will think that earlier meetings might have been held. Several recent occasions occur to one. When the Soviet-inspired aggression by the North Korean Government across the 38th Parallel took place, and when the United States intervened vigorously and actively with the approval of the United Nations 1364 Assembly and we joined with them at the end of June, that was certainly an occasion which the Prime Minister might have considered for talking matters over with our great Ally and friend.

Again, after General MacArthur's brilliant counter-stroke, which gave us back Seoul and changed the whole aspect of the fighting up to that point in Korea, would have been, it seems to me, a good moment to talk over the next steps. At that moment many issues were open, which would have gained by having that direct discussion face to face between the heads of Government assisted by their military advisers. It is always easy to be wise after the event, but there were many people in this country who were wise before the event. I am by no means sure that His Majesty's Government and their expert advisers are excluded from that large number.

Those who had this view felt that it would be wiser to fortify a line, if not at the 38th Parallel, at the waist or at the best military position in advance of it, thus leaving a broad no-man's-land in which we could reconnoitre and into which we could go with mobile columns and, of course, with the all-powerful air forces available while building up all the time a strong fortified line which we could hold while, perhaps, conversations went on.

There is much to be said for strong fortified lines. If properly organised in depth, if protected in front by ever-expanding minefields and wire entanglements, and if developed week after week by concreted structures and excavations and firmly held with modern fire power, they would prove a terrific obstacle to the advance of infantry. All this becomes greater when both flanks rest upon the sea and the sea is in Allied command and when we have unquestioned mastery of the air. Such a position, once established, as it would have been possible to do, about 100 miles long, presents a very different obstacle to the advance and infiltration of masses of enemy infantry, from a moving front in hilly, rocky, scrub-covered country, then broadened to about 300 miles.

I am speaking only of what has happened in the past. I do not attempt to say anything about what may happen in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would be very unwise and 1365 unnecessary to do so in military operations. To pierce a properly fortified line not only would masses of artillery have to be accumulated, but there would also have to be very heavy concentrations of armour. These would present admirable targets to overwhelming air power. It certainly seems that the Chinese armies, if they had attacked such a line, might well have renewed on an even larger scale the painful experiences which we ourselves so often suffered on the Somme and at Passchendaele and in other bloody battlefields of the First World War. I cannot help feeling that it would have been well if all these matters had been talked over at the right moment and in good time in Washington by the highest authorities in both our countries.

We immediately approved the Prime Minister's decision to go when he did, and I feel sure that no one regrets it now. We welcome and wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's statement about British and American unity and how their two flags will fly together however the winds may blow. That is, indeed, the foundation, as he said in his closing words, of our safety and the best hope for the peace of the world and for the survival of free civilisation. It is a great comfort in the darkening scene to feel that there are no party differences, or very limited party differences, in this country on this supreme issue, and that the task of trying to drive a wedge between us and the United States is left to the Communists and their fellow-travellers, aided perhaps, no doubt through folly rather than malice, by the usual Ministerial indiscretions.

Another advantage which has come from the Prime Minister's journey has been the renewed explicit declarations by the United States emphasising the priority of the defence of Europe. We are glad indeed that General Eisenhower is to be appointed to the Supreme Command of the army—however it may be denominated—which is being constituted there. We were led to believe that this appointment would be made many weeks ago. Progress in European defence, which was tardily begun, continues to be lamentably slow. It is more than nine months since I pointed out that no effective defence of Europe was possible without the armed strength of Germany. The movement of opinion in that direction has been continual, but nothing has been done. No 1366 agreement has been reached, and meanwhile Germany lies even more undefended than do other European countries under the menace of Communist and Russian aggression.

The months slip quickly away all the time. Several years have already been wasted, frittered away. The overwhelming Russian military power towers up against us, committees are multiplied, papers are written, words are outpoured and one declaration succeeds another, but nothing in the slightest degree in proportion to the scale of events or to their urgency has been done. When we return after our anxious Recess we shall require a full and prolonged debate upon defence, and we shall demand that a portion of it shall be in secret.

It was with the danger of Europe in my mind that I said some weeks ago that I hoped that we should not get entangled in China. In order to protect myself from the charge of being wise after the event, I venture to remind the House that on 16th November, before these recent reverses in Korea had taken place, I asked the Minister of Defence a supplementary question, which I do not think he resented in any way: … whether he and the Foreign Secretary will constantly bear in mind the great importance of our not becoming, and of our Allies so far as we can influence their actions not becoming, too much pinned down in China or in the approaches to China at a time when the danger in Europe is … occupying all our minds?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1910.] I need scarcely say that I hold to that conviction still.

In view, however, of what has happened since then in Korea and in the United Nations Assembly, I feel it requires to be stated with more precision and refinement. We must not at any time be drawn into urging a policy which would inflict dishonour or humiliation upon the United States or upon the United Nations. Such a course would be at least as full of danger as any other now open to us. We learn from the newspapers that the proposals for a truce or cease fire which were proposed by the 13 Asiatic and Arab states, have been opposed by the Soviet delegation. They certainly seemed to be very far-reaching proposals from our point of view.

I will not say more about them, but, while the fullest priority should be given 1367 to the defence of Western Europe, it would be a great mistake to lose our sense of proportion and cast everything to the winds elsewhere. The only prudent course open to the United States and ourselves is to stabilise the local military position and, if the opportunity then occurs, to negotiate with the aggressors and at least make sure that we negotiate from strength and not from weakness.

We shall no doubt hear from the Foreign Secretary tonight how the question of further conversations with Soviet Russia stands. There was, I think, fairly complete agreement in the House that no abrupt negative or merely dilatory action would be appropriate to the Russian request, and from what we have read in the newspapers, it does not seem likely that there will be any serious disagreement between us upon the procedure eventually to be adopted.

I am strongly in favour of every effort being made by every means, to secure a fair and reasonable settlement with Russia. I should, however, be failing in frankness to the House, and to some of those who agree with me upon this matter, to whom I am much opposed in many ways, if I did not make it clear at this stage that we must not place undue hopes upon the success of any negotiations which may be undertaken. It is our duty—and a duty which we owe to the cause of peace and to our own consciences—to leave no effort unmade that wisdom and fair play can suggest, and that patience can bring forward. But on this side of the House we have never contemplated that if negotiations failed, we should abandon any of the great causes for which we have stood in the past, and for which the United Nations organisation stands today.

The declaration of the Prime Minister that there will be no appeasement also commands almost universal support. It is a good slogan for the country. It seems to me, however, that in this House it requires to be more precisely defined. What we really mean, I think, is no appeasement through weakness or fear. Appeasement in itself may be good or bad according to the circumstances. Appeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble and might be the surest and perhaps the only path to world peace.

1368 When nations or individuals get strong they are often truculent and bullying, but when they are weak they become better mannered. But this is the reverse of what is healthy and wise. I have always been astonished, having seen the end of these two wars, how difficult it is to make people understand the Roman wisdom, "Spare the conquered and confront the proud." I think I will go so far as to say it in the original: Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos. The modern practice has too often been. "punish the defeated and grovel to the strong."

Unhappily, except as regards the atomic bomb—about which I shall have a word to say before I sit down—we are in a very weak position and likely to remain so for several years. As I have repeatedly said, it is only the vast superiority of the United States in this awful weapon that gives us any chance of survival. The argument is now put forward that we must never use the atomic bomb until, or unless, it has been used against us first. In other words, you must never fire until you have been shot dead. That seems to me undoubtedly a silly thing to say and a still more imprudent position to adopt.

Moreover, such a resolve would certainly bring war nearer. The deterrent effect of the atomic bomb is at the present time almost our sole defence. Its potential use is the only lever by which we can hope to obtain reasonable consideration in an attempt to make a peaceful settlement with Soviet Russia. If they had superiority, or even something like equality in this weapon with the United States, I cannot feel any assurance that they would be restrained by the conscientious scruples or moral inhibitions which are often so vocal in this country. It would certainly be a poor service to the cause of peace to free them from all cause of apprehension until they were in every respect ready to strike.

The Soviet power could not be confronted, or even placated, with any hope of success if we were in these years of tension through which we are passing to deprive ourselves of the atomic bomb, or to prevent its use by announcing gratuitously self-imposed restrictions. Of course, when we say "we," we must not forget that we have been unable to make the atomic bomb ourselves. Our failure during five years of peace has astonished me very much when I remember how far we 1369 were advanced, not only in knowledge but in initiative, in 1942 and 1943.

In the communiqué published last week by the President and the Prime Minister, President Truman stated that it was his "hope that world conditions would never call for the use of the atomic bomb," and he undertook to keep His Majesty's Government informed of developments "which might bring about a change in the situation." This assurance by the President contained in the joint communiqué is in very general terms. There is no guarantee in that assurance even of consultation. But in war-time we were on equal terms with the United States in the whole business of atomic research. Today the Prime Minister used a new phrase when he said that full weight will be given to any representations we may make. In 1943 I made an agreement with the President. Since then I understand other arrangements have been made. The Prime Minister tells us today that the same spirit and the same background are there in the present understanding, but he and one or two of my friends and former colleagues on both sides are the only ones in the House to know exactly what this means. I am sure that the Government would be wise to make a fuller statement upon this subject than we have yet heard.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me

§ Mr. Churchill

No, I would rather not, thank you very much. One can always take examples from what happens. The President of the United States the other day let himself be cross-examined freely during a Press conference on this very topic. In my opinion, one ought not to say anything upon the subject one has not very carefully considered beforehand. I certainly do not intend to be cross-examined by the hon. Gentleman, because I have considered carefully what I should say. I am strongly of opinion that the Government should make a fuller statement upon this subject, and that this would be beneficial both to our own position and to our relationship with the United States. After all, this matter has become one of very real and vital consequence to us since the decision of the Government to afford the United States the bomber base in East Anglia, which makes it all the more necessary that the 1370 position in which we stand should be clearly defined.

We are debating this afternoon matters of supreme importance to ourselves and to the whole Empire and Commonwealth of Nations. We do so at a time when, on domestic questions, parties are evenly balanced and deeply divided. A continuance of these conditions is harmful to our national strength. The responsibility lies in the first instance upon the Government and in a special degree, of course, upon the Prime Minister. They decide the movement of our affairs. We respond to the action which they take in these matters.

The Prime Minister has taken marked steps to increase the differences in home politics. I ask him, even now, if he will not reconsider—[interruption.] Hon. Members opposite can get ready to howl. They have not had much at which to cheer during the speech to which they listened earlier; now, perhaps, they will have their chance. I ask the Prime Minister, even now, whether he will not reconsider his decision to force the steel nationalisation Act upon us in the midst of all these storms and dangers. Not only should he consider that an abatement of domestic quarrels would be advantageous—

§ Mr. S. Silverman

So that they can get the profits.

§ Mr. Churchill

—but he should also consider the injury that will be done to our rearmament programme by taking this industry from the competent hands in which it now rests and placing it under the imperfect and inexperienced State management by which it is threatened. It really is not a matter for mere hilarity for uneasy minds and unsettled consciences below the Gangway.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Profits!

§ Mr. Churchill

The Prime Minister spoke about raw materials and the arrangements which were being made for them, but steel is the mainspring of all effective rearmament measures. We wished the right hon. Gentleman well upon his Transatlantic mission, and we have recognised the advantages which it has secured, but I will say now that if he persists in his present attitude on steel nationalisation, he will fail in his duties 1371 to the country as a whole. Although we approved of the visit of the Prime Minister to the United States, although we lent him full support on his mission, although the results have been helpful so far as they go, we cannot in these circumstances feel confidence in the loyalty of the Government to the people of this country. The Prime Minister is counting on our support, which will—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which will not be withheld on issues of national importance abroad, while at the same time he is seeking to placate his political tail by acts of party faction at home.

§ Mr. Churchill

It is very doubtful whether these—

§ Hon. Members

Point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of order?

§ Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones

Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to question the loyalty of His Majesty's Government?

§ Mr. Speaker

That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and not for me. That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Churchill

As my voice was drowned by hon. Members opposite, I might repeat the sentence on which I closed—namely, that we think it is very doubtful whether—

§ Mr. Churchill

If there is any one man in this House who should hang his head in shame—[Interruption]—it is the hon. Gentleman, who won cheers by abusing the United States as shabby moneylenders.

§ Hon. Members

Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker

Is this another point of order?

§ Mr. Churchill

—and now has to applaud with all his strength the tributes paid by the leader—

§ Mr. Silverman

Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Silverman

Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker

Then will the hon. Member put it?

§ Mr. Silverman

I want to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the Leader of the Opposition to use his great opportunity on an historic occasion to accuse everybody in the world except himself of disloyalty.

§ Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. Hon. Members must not waste the time of the House by these mere party accusations.

§ Mr. Churchill

As the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to interrupt me in what I was hoping would be the closing sentence that I should have to utter, I thought it right to point out what he had said in the past and to draw his attention—

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

What has the right hon. Gentleman said in the past?

§ Mr. Churchill

—to draw his attention to the very different sentiments which have been put forward today. I regret very much that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to interrupt any expression of their feelings which they may desire to make, because it does not trouble or worry me in the slightest. It only prevents my getting on with what I have to say.

§ Mrs. Braddock

If your gang had been in control, we would have been at war by now.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am quite determined to utter my last sentence if I have to stand here half an hour. What I say is that I very much regret that the Prime Minister has not risen to the heights of his national responsibility, and I predict that he will encounter misfortunes and reproach on the discordant course to which he has devoted himself. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members should be aware that booing is quite out of order.

§ Mrs. Braddock

It is necessary—

§ Mr. Speaker

If it occurs again, I shall suspend the Sitting for a short time.

§ Mrs. Braddock

You need to, after a speech like that.

§ Mr. S. N. Evans (Wednesbury)

For many years I have been not the least of the right hon. Gentleman's admirers, but I must say how sorry I am that, perhaps for the first time, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has failed to live up to the level of a great and important occasion. We are standing at a very critical crossroad and I should have thought that if ever there were an occasion when we should all measure our words very carefully, it was today.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Atlantic journey had been too tardy in its arrival. I take it that it was always open to the right hon. Gentleman to make representations through the usual channels if he thought there was all that urgency. For myself, and I think for the nation, we are all profoundly grateful to the Prime Minister for his statesmanlike conduct of the nation's affairs at this very critical hour. I thought the visit was remarkably well timed. I am the more surprised at the right hon. Gentleman because, over these past few weeks, his leadership of the Opposition has been really statesmanlike and we have all felt profoundly grateful for that.

I will pass from today's events and hope that the House will take a more sober view of its responsibilities for the remainder of this Session. I agree with the Prime Minister about the importance of the Anglo-American alliance and I cannot understand those who draw no moral distinction between the liberal purposes of the United States as exemplified by Lease-Lend, U.N.R.R.A. and Marshall Aid and the savage, brutal vendettas of totalitarian Communism. It seems to me that to fail to make this moral distinction is intellectual and political dishonesty of a very high order. If ever this Anglo-American alliance fell apart, if the industrial power of Japan and Western Germany should ever be won for Soviet imperialism, liberty and toleration would have perished from the earth and a long night of totalitarian tyranny would have started. Those are my views and I state them.

But other considerations present themselves, and here I address my remarks in particular to a few of my hon. Friends and in special relation to China. Foreign policy cannot be con- 1374 sidered in a vacuum. Foreign policy is the external instrument of a nation's internal needs and in these circumstances to fail to condition our political prejudices by a modicum of economic reality is again grimly dishonest. We must be idealistic in our approach but we must also be pragmatic in our actions.

We are in the Far East for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is from there that we are able to secure the income which enables us in turn to purchase dollar commodities without which the 50 million people who live in these islands could neither be fed, nor clothed, nor could their industries be furnished. If ever we were forced out of the Far East—and as for me, I say we are there, and there we are going to stay—if ever we were deprived of the dollar income that is derived from the Far East, then, inevitably, massive unemployment would follow in this country. Indeed, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that 20 million people would have to get out of Britain for the purpose of getting a living. This country would then be left as a super Stratford-on-Avon, a museum piece, like Vienna between the two wars.

British foreign policy has to reflect all these stark, naked economic considerations at all times. Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Formosa, Singapore, are all cards out of the same pack, and to scuttle from any of these places ahead of a comprehensive and binding agreement, would be the height of folly. I could not lend myself to any such tactic, because surely if there is one lesson we have learned over the past terrible years it is that appeasement only breeds more bellicosity. The Far East is living through a period of nationalist, social and economic ferment much the same as that which afflicted Europe about 1845. But, just as it died down in Europe, it will die down in the Far East. Meanwhile, we have to recognise certain fundamental and very important considerations.

Western civilisation, based on Christianity, is engaged in a contest for the ideological championship of the world which may well last 10 years. We have to recognise, and our friends have to recognise, that this contest cannot be won by a knockout; it can only be won on 1375 points. We have to consider very carefully what our tactics should be and to recognise certain facts, certain changes in the social set-up in the Far East. Having recognised those facts, we then have to ask ourselves some very difficult and searching questions. If we fail to ask ourselves those questions, we shall not arrive at the correct answers.

All who have a part to play at this very important juncture of human history must recognise that the people of Asia are now emerging from a centuries old stupor and that the ideological struggle can be waged successfully only by a combination of economic, political and military policies. We and our friends across the Atlantic must recognise that freedom for feudal landlords and price speculators means empty bellies for hungry people. Men denied the chance to work, and forced to watch their wives and children starve, will not fight to preserve decadent, incompetent corrupt régimes such as those of Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-shek. A resurrected Louis XV has no answer to the problems that now confront us in the Far East. It was for these reasons that all the best elements in China in desperation joined the anti-Chiang Kai-shek crusade.

It so happened that the Communists led the opposition, but had they called themselves atheists, bigamists or polygamists, it would have been just the same. China was absolutely desperate. Any change was better than none, and in all fairness I am bound to say that the present régime would appear to be the most efficient and the least corrupt that China has had for many years. I want to suggest that east of Suez the Western democracies' most powerful instrument is not the atom bomb but President Truman's fourth point.

I shall have something to say in a few minutes about our relationship with China. Meanwhile. I should like to say that two Tennessee Valley projects, one on the Ganges and the other on the Yangtze, would do more for Western ideas, ideals and interests than a dozen atom bombs; 50,000 ploughs more than 10 million bullets, and a handful of rice would do more good than a hand grenade.

It would be fatal to write off China as having passed finally into the Russian 1376 orbit. What are the instruments which the Soviet uses. The emotions appealed to by the Kremlin autocracy are hatred, envy, jealousy and a lust for power. But those are not characteristics of the Chinese people. The Chinese people have a strong tradition of the family and a philosophy based on the teachings of Confucius. The Chinese have much more in common with Western democracy than they have with totalitarian Communism. Russia requires China as an economic and military vassal—cannon fodder for the Kremlin. But what can Russia do for China? Russia, with a 25 million ton steel production, cannot meet her own requirements. Manchuria is of vital importance to China; but the Russians have a stranglehold on Manchuria.

These are the real politics of the present Chinese set-up. What we need more than anything else is not an aggravation of the difficulties with China. No appeasement, as I have said, but what would be fatal would be a closing of the door. The job of diplomacy is to keep the door open wide. Economics will take charge, before very long. Time is on our side, not on the side of the Russians.

I should like to say a few words about these Russians. For myself, I believe that they are staging the biggest bluff the world has ever known. Russia is a swollen octopus, not a coiled spring. Our job is to lop off a few of the tentacles. We made a start in Yugoslavia—a very good start. The recent development in Yugoslav-Anglo-American relations is a most heartening one. Much the same tactics should be applied to China. I take no pessimistic view of the present situation. For 90 per cent. of the people who march behind Communist banners in Prague, Budapest and Warsaw, the finest sight in all the world would be the white cliffs of Dover or the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour. If the Russians were foolish enough to precipitate a third world war, what a time they would have on their lines of communication.

But I am not at all sure that we are doing sufficient to give meaning and purpose to social democracy. I am not at all sure that we are doing enough to refute the tinsel half-truths of Russian propaganda. We must remember that social and moral progress needs constant 1377 attention, and this is a period of history in which the spiritual side of mankind is asking questions. That presents us with a great opportunity. What can totalitarian Communism offer to the world compared with social democracy? I do not believe that we are doing half enough to get our point of view over. Nor do I think that we are doing sufficient to "debunk" this Russian propaganda.

The great rallying cry of the French Revolution was, "Liberty, equality, fraternity." This self-perpetuating political caucus in Moscow symbolises liberty by keeping 10 million political prisoners in concentration camps. These are the topics we ought to be talking about in the Far East and behind the Iron Curtain. Soviet equality seems to mean 35s. a week for Moscow crossing sweepers and £250 a week for doctors and lawyers in private practice; country mansions, American cars and houseboats in the Crimea for commissars, and 2s. 5¾d. a week for Red Army privates. This seems to be a most peculiar set-up for what is supposed to be the classless Socialist Utopia. Those are the comments we ought to be making.

There is one other matter. The Kremlin propagandists are always saying to the workers that the capitalists will do everything except get off their backs. Since the war there have been three large loans floated in Russia, the last being for £2,000 million at 4 per cent. I should like to know who in this classless Socialist Utopia is able to get hold of a £2,000 million chunk of surplus value, and who will work to earn the 4 per cent. interest —1 per cent. more than the British bank rate. Part of Anglo-American strategy at this moment should be to revitalise our propaganda, and these are the sort of matters that we ought to be talking about.

There comes a time in every nation's struggles when the faint-hearted grow weary and say, "Why go on?" Throughout our history, we British have always resisted that temptation. I hope and believe that very few people are going to be deceived by this peace propaganda instigated by Kremlin apologists drawing large salaries from British educational institutions. I do not think many will be deceived; neither do I think many will be deceived by this anti-American propaganda. Taking it at the low level of 1378 expediency, when in history did two parties to an alliance see eye to eye with each other on everything? Never; of course, not.

I hope the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, to whom we owe a great deal for his conduct of foreign affairs over these last few years—more than some are prepared to recognise—will continue to do everything necessary to consolidate this present happy Anglo-American relationship.

§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I should like to begin, if I may, by joining with the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in paying a short, but very sincere, tribute to Mr. Peter Fraser. Not only has New Zealand lost one of its leading statesmen, a great Prime Minister who had won the affection and admiration of all parties there, but the Commonwealth, and indeed free democracy, has lost a warm friend and wise counsellor. We mourn with New Zealand at his early passing.

Two days ago, I rose here not only to congratulate the Prime Minister but to express gratitude to him for undertaking his visit to America. It was essential that that visit should be paid, and the Prime Minister was quite right in saying that so much could be done—and better and more quickly done—by direct talks around a table than could ever be achieved by communications. However close these may be, they are not the same as personal contact. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I wish the Prime Minister had gone earlier, and had renewed the contacts established during the war, but I would like to say at once to the Prime Minister that I do not recall that anyone of us tendered that advice before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) about a fortnight ago. All I can say is that I am glad the Prime Minister went.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, since he is joining with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), may I ask him this question? Does he support the right hon. Member for Woodford in charging the 1379 Prime Minister with disloyalty to the people of this country?

§ Mr. Davies

I am sure that that was not said by the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, this is much too serious for any of us, on the other side of the House or on this side—

§ Mr. Davies

I expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman may get his opportunity to say what he has to say, but, today, we are discussing the serious gravity of the international situation.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes

Is not that a serious—

§ Hon. Members

Sit down.

§ Mr. Davies

It is good to know from the communiqué and from the Prime Minister today that there was complete accord between him and the President upon the real objects of the foreign policy of both countries—the maintenance of world peace, respect for the rights and interests of peoples, strengthening the defences of the free nations and eliminating the causes of fear, want and discontent, and to promote the democratic way of life. It is well that we should know that, on these main principles and main aims, there was complete accord between the two democratic Governments. It is unthinkable that two nations which fought side by side and made such tremendous sacrifices through two world wars should have any cause for disagreement at this grave moment, when the world is face to face with a possibility—to put it no higher than that—of another world war.

The situation in Korea, which had altered so much in the last three weeks, was one of such increasing and intense gravity that there was one question certainly in our minds, and I think it must have been in the minds of most hon. Members of this House; namely, what was now to be the action of the United Nations, and, in particular, the action of the United States of America and ourselves in the face of this increasing pressure? A new war could obviously have been started by the invasion of Korea by Chinese forces. The question was whether we would give way to the aggressors and seek a solution by way of appeasement.

1380 I welcome the firm declaration by both Governments that there could be no thought of appeasement or rewarding the aggressor, whether in the Far East or elsewhere. Had it been otherwise, then we would have had to acknowledge that the United Nations organisation had completely failed, and that it was no more effective than the League of Nations, which had already broken down. The United Nations organisation has not hitherto been very successful. It has had a stormy and tempestuous passage during these last five years, but if it had had to acknowledge that it cannot stand up to aggression, then, indeed, it would have become a complete wreck.

That at once brings us to the next question. Justice must be done, and, if I may suggest another addition to the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for Woodford with regard to appeasement, it would be that there can be no appeasement so long as injustice is done or injustice is allowed to remain. If I may put it in my own way, I think that justice must be done, that, if possible, peace must be preserved. It is quite certain that we all desire, if it is possible, to find a peaceful solution, and I am sure that that is the true desire of every hon. Member of this House, and not only of every hon. Member here, but of all the people throughout the country and throughout the Commonwealth. I will also add that it is my view that it is the desire of all ordinary people wherever they may be, even beyond the Iron Curtain.

While the main danger is Europe, the immediate problem is Korea. The Prime Minister today very rightly paid a tribute to the Indian Government. Might I add one word to that? I should like to pay a tribute to the Indian representative, Sir Benegal Rau, together with the other representatives for the persistent, gallant and optimistic efforts they have made to obtain some form of agreement which might stop further firing and further slaughter. We are glad to find that their efforts have met with the support not only of the Asiatic and Arab countries, but of this country and the United States.

It is significant that this very small though very necessary step towards a peaceful solution, has met with complete resistance by the Russians. The least they could have done was to stop fighting 1381 while the discussions were taking place. I hope that in spite of the action of Russia, China will agree to this "cease fire." If she does, then reason may prevail. If she does not, then there will be continued fighting, and nobody knows where that may end.

Let us assume for a moment that she will agree, what follows then? Surely, in that case China must be a party to any discussions that take place. Her armies are already in Korea, and by the time the discussions begin they may be not only on the 38th Parallel, but south of it. She cannot be expected to withdraw her troops from Korea unless she is a party to any agreement that is made. We all recognise the difficulties confronting not only the United States Government but the United States people in any pressure we might bring to bear upon them for a recognition of China. The sacrifices that the Americans have already made on behalf of the United Nations and on behalf of freedom, and the severe casualties they have suffered are matters we should bear in mind.

§ Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question? I am not quite clear about what he said. Presumably, he does not propose that Communist China should be admitted to the Security Council until her troops have been withdrawn?

§ Mr. Davies

I was just coming to that. If this cease fire is agreed to, and if then negotiations start, there will have to be some recognition of the Government responsible for sending the Chinese troops into Korea. That begins the recognition, but how far that can then be carried forward at this stage, I really do not know. It seems to me that once we have accorded that much recognition, it will be very difficult to refuse complete recognition.

I think we took the wise course, and that had that course been followed by all the other free nations, many of our difficulties to day would have been avoided. One recognises that the difficulties have been increased in these last few weeks by the invasion of Korea, the invasion of Tibet, the threat to Nepal, and the action that has been taken in Indo-China. These acts have all increased the difficulties, but, in spite of the difficulties, if I thought that without surrendering the cause of justice, and without giving away the real position 1382 of the United Nations, I could get peace, a true understanding and a better agreement by admitting China to the Security Council and the Assembly, I would be prepared to run that risk.

I cannot understand why there should be any real objection to the admission of China, even today, when Russia is already there, and when the acts of which we are complaining have all been founded in Moscow. Moscow has been behind everything that has happened in Korea, Indo-China, and elsewhere. There is not one of us who has not said that while not using her own troops, Russia is encouraging others to go to war on her behalf. If we recognise Russia as part of the Security Council and are prepared to sit down and discuss matters with her, it is difficult to understand the objection to China.

I think we are all agreed on one thing that nobody today would back up the possession of a seat by Chiang Kai-shek and his régime. What right have they to a seat? If one could only begin with these talks, then I think that the future of Korea and the very difficult question of Formosa might be dealt with in an amicable way. While making these statements, I still wish to emphasise that I recognise the difficulties and the sincerity of both the American people and the American Government, and that their desire, like our desire, is for peace throughout the world, that democracy should succeed, and that we should not give way to the aggressor.

I will now turn for a few moments to Europe. I welcome the news received last night and repeated by the Prime Minister today, that an agreement has been reached with regard to an integrated force. I assume that following the communiqué, this, whenever the final agreement is made, will lead to the appointment of a supreme commander. But I hope that the agreement will go further because that in itself will not be enough. It is all very well for us to have these broad general understandings and expressions of good will, but we have got to keep in step, and we are not in step all the time.

I am making no complaint about the speeches made by the Minister of Defence or by the Minister of Works. There is Cabinet responsibility, which is recognised, and there is a certain freedom of expression allowed in this country, and 1383 nobody knows that better than the right hon. Member for Woodford. I remember in the old days that Mr. Asquith had to stand at the Box and say that the right hon. Gentleman had given way to some poetic expressions which in no way involved Cabinet responsibility. I am only mentioning this matter for one reason. It just shows that we are not completely in step, although we may be from now on, thanks to the visit of the Prime Minister.

Then there is the question of the export of materials. America has completely stopped the export of materials to Russia and her satellites, but she is perfectly ready to part with them to us. I heard of a case the other day where 40 tons of valuable material came to one of the ports of this country and was then sent to Russia. That kind of thing will not only lead to misunderstanding but to irritation, and we cannot afford even that. That kind of thing has got to stop. I would ask whether, having gone so far and the position being so threatening, it is not possible now to appoint not only the Combined Chiefs of Staff we had during the war but a Joint Commodities Board as well, so that we should know exactly where we are. That is the only way we can carry out the joint policy that the President and the Prime Minister said they had in mind.

I agree, of course, and so does everybody else, with the premise that we all hope that world conditions will not call for the use of the atom bomb. But however much we may abhor its use, and while we are glad of this understanding that has been reached between the President and the Prime Minister, I believe all this recent talk about the bomb, its devastation and its use and non-use, has been playing straight into Russia's hands. Already the Russians are making use of it as part of their pseudo-peace propaganda. Only the other day there appeared in "Pravda" an article expressing joy that such a feeling had been roused against the use of the atom bomb amongst all people here and elsewhere in their desire for peace, that no government would now dare to sanction its use in any circumstances. That is real evidence, and the only evidence so far as I know, that hitherto the bomb had acted as a deterrent on the Russian Government. I prefer to leave the matter where it has been left by the Prime Minister, 1384 and I do not wish to press him to go any further than he has gone today.

There is one matter which I regret was omitted from the Prime Minister's speech. I want to refer to a step which I consider to be likely to lead to an understanding and an avoidance of war. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—and all of us agree—that we do not want such commitments in the Far East as will endanger our position in Europe. But all really comes back to Moscow. If Moscow were not dominating the situation, all this fear would collapse. Therefore, there is only one thing we can do by which we may take a step towards arriving at a better understanding. That is the one suggested by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington when he spoke in the House a fortnight ago, by Lord Salisbury in another place, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and, if I may add my small voice, by me in a suggestion I made in this House and in December, 1947, when I was a joint contributor to a letter in "The Times," asking for this very thing. This is a meeting between our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of France, the President of the United States and Mr. Stalin.

If we could get that, we would avoid all these legalistic questions and objections which are being raised in United Nations discussions and calling one another names and things like that. We would brush all those things aside. I know the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington urged that there should be a careful agenda, and that was accepted by the Foreign Secretary. What steps are being taken to prepare that agenda? I suppose the Prime Minister was referring to that when he spoke of the document which is being drawn up in Paris by the Ambassadors. But do not let us waste too much time on detail. Russia has already made suggestions in Prague, we are all agreed that there should not be a blank refusal, and I am anxious that the leaders should be brought together as soon as possible.

There might be two conferences, one of which would relate to the Far East, and in which China would have to be a partner, and I imagine also India and Pakistan. We cannot pay too high a tribute to the part that is obviously being 1385 played in world affairs today by Mr. Nehru. The other conference should relate not only to Europe in particular but to the whole world. It is along those lines that I think we can best establish a firm basis for permanent peace, which is the desire of everyone.

§ Captain Hewitson (Hull, Central)

It was with some sorrow that I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) conclude his speech. During the war many people, like myself, looked upon him, and indeed we still do so today, as a great Britisher, yet today, when we are making a call to our Allies for a bond of unity similar to that which we had during the war, we had an outburst from him in concluding his speech that was not worthy of him and his glorious past.

I do not intend to make any statement on the torch that is burning in the Far East. In my opinion, our danger lies in our weakness in Europe. We have suspicion rampant in Europe. When I visit the various countries of Europe I do not meet the leaders of Governments, I meet the ordinary humble men and women working in the factories. During recent years I have been able to discuss with them their ideas about the countries behind the Iron Curtain and the policy set forth by the free democracies.

I must say, unfortunately, that this high rate of suspicion that is running through Western Europe comes from our own colleagues in the Social Democratic parties. There is suspicion in France. There is that great fear of another German rearmament and another German march. In Belgium, two weeks ago, I heard colleagues express that fear and suspicion at a conference. It is all very well to talk about rearming Germany, and it is all very well going to European conferences and saying, "Germany must be rearmed." The first essential is to get common consent within Germany to rearm.

Since the war, I have had the privilege and opportunity of visiting Germany many times and of assisting in the building up of their new trade union movement. I can say, without hesitation, that tae trade union movement in Germany today is against rearmament in Germany. On the political side, which I do not think is quite as honest as the trade union 1386 side—I have not been brought up as a politician but as a trade union leader—

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

You are one now.

§ Captain Hewitson

Quite. On the political side we had the spectacle of politicians playing at politics. I remember visiting Dr. Schumacher's home just before his election. He was putting forward the basis of his policy for the forthcoming election, and he was wavering very much on the question of German rearmament. He was wavering because he did not know the policy of Dr. Adenauer and what line he was going to take during the campaign. One has a grave suspicion that in Germany there has been a lot of playing at politics and not so much sincerity on the political side with respect to rearmament. It is essential that Germany should be rearmed. That is my personal opinion.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes

Against her will?

§ Captain Hewitson

No. We have to get her consent. But if we go into Germany on a recruiting campaign when the trade unions and some of the political parties in Germany are against rearmament, we shall get the Nazi class into the army and we shall form units of danger which could be fatal to democracy in the future. Who are more capable than our great trade union movement in this country to make the approach to the trade union movement in Germany and point out to them the need for establishing safety across Western Europe? As for the Social Democrats, who are more suitable than my own party to call a conference with the Social Democrats in Germany and point out the need for a great build-up to maintain our freedom across Western Europe?

These things will have to be done; otherwise there will be danger from the rising general staff in Germany who will take every opportunity to re-establish themselves. Recently at Rüdesheim the German youth were marching again, and it made one feel cold inside, because that youth is awaiting direction. If the German Junkers come back to power they will take that youth and build it for themselves, in order to secure, if possible, the re-birth of that Nazism which we hope is now dead in Europe.

1387 Those are problems we must face seriously. All the bickerings in this House and outside, and all the cross arguments at international conferences, will not solve that problem in Germany. It must be solved by a sensible approach and by appealing to reason based upon common sense. We must approach the problem in that way and allay the fears rampant in France and Belgium by bringing them into consultation and getting common agreement. But there are dangers of repercussions within our own frontiers. We talk in this House of unity. We have done so today and in a debate at the beginning of the week; we had two Divisions in that debate to show our unity.

There has also been an appeal for unity and more production outside this House. But the appeal will have to be made during the next year. As a trade union leader, I realise that the responsibility that we shall be placing upon the shoulders of the people in the country will have to be handled very carefully; otherwise we may find ourselves in a series of industrial upheavals which would be fatal. I ask hon. Members to visualise the picture confronting us at the beginning of the next year. The cost of living is rising; we are going to ask men and women in industry to agree to further restrictions; we are told that raw materials are going to be canalised and transferred from luxury industries to war potential industries. That will create pockets of unemployment, and that unemployment will have to be absorbed by war production industry.

In other words, we are going to cause some upheaval in the homes of our people. In addition to that, it may be urgently necessary to bring back into operation orders such as the Essential Work Order, to ring-fence jobs and keep men in essential jobs where they are needed—such as the mining, engineering, agricultural and similar industries. It may also be necessary—indeed, it is being discussed at the moment—to extend working hours in order to increase war production.

These problems will be facing us at the beginning of next year, and demonstrations of disunity in this House will not help the men and women who are attempting to secure that increased pro- 1388 duction. Also during the next year, when the first block releases are due under our National Service scheme, we may be asking for some extension of that service. That, again, will cause heartburning and some feeling in the country. If ever there was need for a demonstration of unity in this House, it is now. We should stop a lot of the shadow-boxing that goes on day by day in this Chamber.

We should tell the people—and when I say the people I mean our whole population—that we are giving in this House a demonstration of working for the well being of the nation as a whole. I would even go so far as to make this suggestion. We are rising to-morrow for a month, and it would be much better psychologically in the country if we were only to go away for a fortnight. We are going to ask people to work overtime; we are asking them to work harder and produce more, and yet we ourselves are not setting a shining example. These are all small things which may have no apparent meaning—

§ Mr. Paton (Norwich, North)

When my hon. and gallant Friend says t