statement by Mr. Eden quoted by the leader of the opposition, as it appears at page 465 of Hansard:
As regards actual recognition, there is a fair field for argument on practical as well as on legal grounds. It is a real misfortune that in this, as in other Far Eastern matters, we should be acting piecemeal . . .
That was the quotation given by the leader of the opposition the other evening. The copy of Mr. Eden's statement on that occasion which I have seen, and which I would like to put on record, adds a few words to that quotation; and I now quote from the text of Mr. Eden's statement:
As regards actual recognition, there is a fair field for argument on practical as well as on legal grounds. The decision to recognize is no doubt eventually inescapable . . .
Those are the additional words in my text.
The third condition laid down by the leader of the opposition-though I do not know whether you could call it a condition- was that we should agree on help to the peoples of Asia; and I am sure there will be no difference of opinion on that.
The fourth suggestion he made was in his reference to a Pacific pact, and on that very important question he quoted me as follows- I refer to his words as reported at page 464 of Hansard:
The proposal has been put forward in this house on different occasions by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that a Pacific pact to complement the Atlantic pact should be brought into being. Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that that could not be done because if the nations of the Pacific were to be invited to consider a Pacific pact it would be necessary to invite Russia and China.
That is not exactly what I said. I said that would be one consideration, whether it would be possible to invite Russia and China to a conference which would be discussing a regional pact in the Pacific. Of course I am not quite so naive as to suggest that if an invitation of that kind were sent, and if it had the conditions which normally attach to such invitations, the Russians would accept it. I am not even sure whether it would be of any use to send them such an invitation. My argument against a Pacific pact at this time, which is not mentioned in this statement, was that in my opinion it would be futile and unwise to proceed with a conference to negotiate a Pacific security and mutual guarantee pact at a time when the United States, the United Kingdom and India have indicated that they would not be able to participate in any such conference. Surely that serious argument is enough to explain why we have not accepted certain advice which has been given us in this house to push ahead with a Pacific pact at this time.
I thought I had made my position perfectly clear on this matter both on Friday
and on previous occasions, and that in doing so I had not lapsed into the diplomatic language of mumbo-jumbo. If, however, the situation in the Pacific should change and should become analogous to the situation that obtained in the Atlantic when we proceeded to work out the North Atlantic pact, then certainly we would have to reconsider Dur attitude toward this matter.
Finally the leader of the opposition made a strong and eloquent appeal against anything which might be interpreted as appeasement of communist aggression. I agree with him, though appeasement is one of those very difficult and dangerous words which can be interpreted in many ways. If by appeasement we mean prejudicing our own security or the security of the democratic world by making extorted and unnecessary concessions to a possible aggressor in the hope that it might keep him quiet; or if we mean assisting, encouraging and strengthening those whom we thought had aggressive designs, then of course I am sure everyone in this house is against appeasement. But it is a dangerous word, which should not be used carelessly. Appeasement is not the same as peace, nor is it the same as a desire for peace.
In his statement last Friday evening the leader of the opposition also said, as reported at page 465 of Hansard:
Every word I have spoken Is a word to urge upon this government the duty to say in no uncertain terms, no matter what may be said by other governments in the world: "Appeasement is going to go no further: we have learned the lessons of the past and there will be no truck and trade with tyranny of this kind unless and until they are at least prepared to accept the ordinary standards of international conduct."
In my statement I said, as reported at pages 429-30 of Hansard:
So far as Canada is concerned . . . there will never be any lack of willingness to search for a solution to this and the other problems which divide us from the communist world.
I suggest there is no contradiction between the two statements. In this connection I referred to the necessity of genuine compromise and accommodation; and I made it abundantly clear, I hope, that the Canadian government was fully aware of the danger of appeasement of the kind I have just indicated, but at the same time was conscious of a duty to keep searching for some way out of the present impasse.
Last Friday the hon. member for Peel spoke in a similar vein, with perhaps fewer qualifications than I gave, when he said, as reported at page 434 of Hansard:
. . . the most vital job at the hand of every responsible nation of the world today is somehow to find the way to stop the present aimless international drifting. . . .
This, I remind the house, is a quotation from a speech made by the hon. member for Peel.
. . . which is causing no end of alarm to the ordinary citizens of the world, because they have a revolting fear that a continuation of this squaring off of one group of nations towards another may end in another armed holocaust.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree.