May 4, 1951

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

Mr. Speaker, I think when the Secretary of State for External Affairs is referring his estimates to a committee of this house he should make a statement to open the debate. Incidentally that was the understanding that I had of the course of this debate-that the minister would first make a statement. If he does not make such a statement now, he will close the debate 80709-176

External Affairs

when he speaks, and if he makes some pronouncements then which the house might wish to discuss, the house will be precluded from discussing them. In view of the general international situation I urge upon the minister that he make his statement now and give a lead to the discussion.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, while I have no strong views on this matter one way or the other, if it seems to be the wish of the house that I make a statement now I shall be glad to do so. Then when I close the debate I may be able to deal with questions which have been brought up. That will mean that the house will have to listen to me twice.

Before beginning my statement, I should like to say a word or two about the point which has been raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that in some form and in some way, by a statement made outside this house, I have declared a new policy in regard to our relations with the United States. That does not seem to me to be accurate. If the leader of the opposition will do me the honour of reading the statements that I have made in the house and indeed outside the house, in recent years, I think he will come to the conclusion, as I have, that what I said in Toronto did not in any way, shape or form initiate any new policy in regard to our relations with our great neighbour to the south.

I am not going to go over the whole ground that I tried to go over last February. In my statement this afternoon I shall not touch on many important developments in regard to international affairs. These may arise in the course of the debate, and if so, I shall do my best to deal with them when I wind up the discussion. There are two or three important matters, however, of a somewhat general character, upon which I wish to touch at this time. They affect more particularly our relations with the United States and our relations with other countries in the United Nations in respect of Far Eastern developments which weigh so heavily on our minds today.

One of the cardinal facts in the world today is the emergence of the United States to a position of unquestioned leadership in the free world. A great shift of power and influence has occurred within the last few years, with the result that the United States now stands pre-eminent. By any test it is not only the most powerful of the free states of the world; it is immensely the most powerful. We in Canada know the United States so well that we can view this great and historic development without apprehension, and feel indeed relief and satisfaction that

External Affairs

power is in the hands of a nation which has such a deeply rooted democratic tradition, whose people have no desire to dominate other countries, and which has shown its good will towards less fortunate peoples on so many occasions by acts of magnanimity and generosity.

This feeling, I think, is increased by a consideration of what our position would be today if the United States had not decided to assume the responsibilities throughout the world which its new position has thrust upon it. We have good reason to believe that it will discharge those responsibilities with conscience, courage, and respect for the interests of others. The predominance of the United States, however, is bound to raise new problems for all those countries which share its values, and which are associated with it, and proud to be associated with it, in the defence of freedom. These new problems must be understood and must be solved if friction is to be kept to a minimum and the forces of freedom are to be strong and united.

In considering, for instance, Canada's relations with the United States it is not enough to take refuge in thought or in words, as I see it, in the usual cliches of 135 years of peace or the unguarded boundary. Certainly in my view any spokesman for the Canadian government or the Canadian people on external affairs has a duty to go deeper than this in the examination of this important question. Such an examination can also lead to a clarification of issues only if it is made within the wider framework of the position of the United States as the leader of our free alliance against the dangers which threaten us. The maintenance, let alone the strengthening, of an alliance of free nations is never easy, and requires tolerance, patience and great understanding. It is not easy in war; it is not easy in times of normal peace. It is especially difficult, I think, in a period such as the present of part war and part peace, with all its frustrations, tensions and anxieties.

Therefore I am sure we all agree that this imposes on the peoples of all free states a special obligation to face the problems of their mutual relationships with candour and frankness, but also with a firm resolve to understand each other's points of view. It seems to me that the unity of the free world would be in real jeopardy if there were no free discussion of our common objectives and of the possibly different means by which they can best be reached. Much of that discussion will and should be carried on confidentially between governments, but the people have a right to be kept informed of the problems involved and the principles of

action which the government may think to be necessary for their solution. Therefore honest discussion of the issues before us, so long as it is conducted in cool and reasonable terms, will not weaken the free world. I am convinced on the contrary that it is an indispensable part of the process of developing our united strength, although of course in this kind of discussion one always runs the risk of misinterpretation and the placing of a wrong emphasis on what may have been said.

In all these relations between the governments in our alliance of free countries, no single government can of course surrender its judgment into the keeping of any other government, however close and friendly that government may be. It may at times, however -and I have said this before, although it is sometimes forgotten-have to yield to the collective judgment of the group reached after discussion and consultation. That is the only way that democracy can be carried on within our own country. It is the only way that democracy can be carried on internationally. The decision when to hold out and when to yield is often a terribly difficult one to make. Yet it is on that decision that the unity and close co-operation among members of our alliance will so often depend; and on that so much else depends. Oversensitiveness and obstinacy, on the one hand, over the maintenance of national rights and national sovereignty, and arrogance or carelessness, on the other, in overriding them, might in either case produce serious and even dangerous division among the countries of the world.

That division, which would lead possibly to disunity and even disruption, gives the foe that threatens us his greatest comfort and his greatest opportunity. Particularly during these times-I am sure we all agree with this-must the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada maintain and strengthen their special ties of friendship within the larger group. It would be folly to think that any one of us can go it alone. It would also be a fatal error, made previously by two dictators, for any potential enemy to think that we intend to take that course, folly also for him to draw wrong conclusions from that mistaken interpretation of our democratic differences of opinion. On the big issues we stand together within our countries as well as between our countries, even though we may sometimes seem verbally separated. It is, I think, as much the responsibility of public and press opinion as of governments to keep these differing voices from resulting in different policies. Policy for the free world must be forged not on a shifting basis of

emotion but on the hard anvil of facts. Only in that way can it be well-tempered and strong.

One of the most important of these facts is that of persistent Soviet communist hostility. Another is, as I have said, the new position of power and responsibility of the United States as the leader of the free world. This latter fact, as I see it, means that our own relations with the United States have entered upon, a new phase within the last few years. It does not mean that they should not be or cannot be as close and friendly as they have been in the past. Canadians, with very few exceptions, indeed-and those exceptions mostly of the communist persuasion-all hope this will be the case and want to do what they can to make it possible and even easy. Certainly that is the policy of this government, as it has been throughout the years.

Well, what is the nature of this change I have been talking about, and not only inside the house? Hitherto questions which from time to time we have had to discuss and decide with the United States were largely bilateral matters between neighbours. They arose from such things as border disputes, differences over the diversion of water and so on, or had to do with commerce back and forth across the boundary. Of course they were often complicated and difficult enough. Now, however, we are not only neighbours but allies. I think perhaps that is the simplest way to indicate the change that has come over the nature of our relations with the United States. We have always been good neighbours, accustomed to settling our differences in a neighbourly spirit. Now we are good allies, and as allies we must do our best to settle, in our customary friendly way, such differences as may exist between us from time to time. But the questions we shall have to discuss in this way will often be of a new character arising from our senior and junior partnership in a common association. They will often deal with the policies to be followed by that association in the North Atlantic pact or within the United Nations, very often indeed within the United Nations.

It is perhaps not unnatural that many people in Canada and the United States have not yet realized this change. It has come about rather suddenly, and I doubt if in either country we have yet completely adjusted ourselves to it. On Tuesday of last week, I believe, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave an illustration of one of the new categories of subjects under discussion between Canada and the United States when he announced in this house the recommendations of the permanent joint board on 80709-176-J

External Affairs

defence, which had been accepted by both governments, for the revision of the lease under which the United States holds certain bases in Newfoundland. The discussions on this subject between Canada and the United States were carried on in a friendly and cooperative spirit, as is our habit, and they have resulted in a compromise which I think will commend itself to the house as reasonable in the circumstances. The problem itself arises out of the defence requirements of the United States on Canadian soil, requirements not merely for its own security but for the security of the free world. It also arises, however,- out of the necessity of the United States meeting these legitimate requirements in a way which recognizes Canadian jurisdiction and, even more important, Canadian self-respect.

In an age of atomic weapons and long-range bombers Canada is obviously now of far greater importance to the defence of North America and the north Atlantic area than ever before. For that reason, and because we are now joined as allies in the North Atlantic treaty, inevitably from time to time there will be other defence questions of very great importance to both countries which must be discussed. I have no doubt that we shall be able to find satisfactory solutions to those questions as well, but it will be easier to find them if we in Canada continue to remember the very heavy responsibility the United States has shouldered for the common defence, and if the United States continue to appreciate that the alliance in which we are joined with them will not be as strong as it should be unless the various defence arrangements which may be necessary on our soil are worked out in such a way that they will commend themselves wholeheartedly to Canadian public opinion.

Another-and I suppose at the moment the most pressing-problem we face with the United States, because it is indeed a phase of United States-Canadian relations though it is also of far wider and deeper significance, involving as it does the whole question of global war or global peace, is the policy to be adopted at the present time in Korea. For the time being I think the role of diplomacy in Korea is secondary, because the scene there is now dominated by the heavy fighting which has been going on for the past few weeks. The first wave of the new Chinese attack has been checked and broken by United Nations forces, but the attack is not yet spent-far from it. This is probably just a lull before another storm. So it seems to me that for some time to come, while this heavy fighting is going on, the task of upholding the purpose and will of the United Nations in Korea must rest upon

External Affairs

the fighting men who have withstood so courageously the attacks made upon them by much more numerous enemy forces. One Canadian battalion, as we know, has had an important part in the recent fighting. Additional Canadian troops have now arrived in Korea, and before many more days have passed a full Canadian brigade group will be in action. These men, along with those of the other United Nations forces, and particularly the forces of the United States, will have more effect upon the course of events in Korea over the next few weeks than any diplomatic moves; and I know the thoughts of every one of us will be with them, and perhaps especially with those of our own men who are going into action for the first time.

In those circumstances perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to say too much about the actual situation in Korea, but there are a few things I should like to say. The present Chinese attack must be broken before we can again begin to entertain any hope of a peaceful and honourable settlement there. When it has been broken, as we hope it will be, and1 with heavy losses to the enemy, the Chinese communists may be in a mood to negotiate an honourable settlement-the only kind of settlement we have ever contemplated-or at least to desist from further attacks. While I think it would be quite unrealistic to hold out hope of an early settlement in Korea, or even of an early end to the fighting, nevertheless we should always remember that the United Nations stands ready to negotiate, though not to betray its trust or yield to blackmail. The statement of principles adopted by the general assembly by an overwhelming majority on January 13 last, which would provide for a cease-fire to be followed by a Korean settlement and by the negotiation of a wide range of Far Eastern problems, still represents the considered opinion of the United Nations. If the Chinese government and the North Korean government wish to take advantage of the offer contained in that statement, it is open to them to do so. Of their willingness to do so, however, there is no sign whatever. The approaches made to Peking by the good offices committee established by the United Nations assembly have all been rebuffed. The North Korean government, in a broadcast message as late as April 18, has repeated its determination to drive the United Nations forces from the peninsula. We can only hope that the heavy losses which the aggressors

are now suffering and will suffer in Korea may produce a more accommodating frame of mind.

In the meantime, the United Nations forces are heroically and skilfully fulfilling the task which has been given to them, which is the defeat of armed aggression in Korea. This is-and it should not be forgotten-the sole military objective of the forces of the United Nations in Korea, the defeat of aggression so that a free, democratic and united Korea can be established. It is also worthy of note, I believe, that, as Mr. Warren Austin, the United States delegate to the security council, said1 on May 1-I quote from his statement:

The United Nations has not declared, nor has it ever been askedi to declare, that the political objectives-

That is, a democratic, free and unified Korea.

-must be achieved by military means. In fact, the emphasis has been quite the contrary.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is not an aim or objective of the United Nations in its Korean policy to interfere in the internal affairs of any Asian country, to replace one regime by another. Its aim, as I said, is to defeat aggression and so prevent other acts of aggression by proving that aggression does not pay. To some that may seem to be too limited an objective. On this point the well known columnist Mr. Walter Lippmann had this to say the other day-and I quote from his article:

Only a limited objective can be obtained by a war which is limited. The question now is whether the country-

He was referring to his own country, the United States.

-will agree with reasonable unity that our military objective in Korea is the limited one of repelling aggression south of the 38th parallel and restoring the South Korean republic. We can, and we should, still hold it as a political and diplomatic objective that Korea should eventually be united by democratic means. But we cannot unify Korea by a war confined to the Korean peninsula, and we shall get nowhere in this controversy until we make the choice of limited objectives out of a limited war or unlimited objectives out of an unlimited war.

It is also sometimes loosely said that the United Nations forces are fighting in Korea to defeat communism. There is perhaps some colour for this mistake, since the aggression perpetrated is by communist states, and has its roots in the totalitarian communist nature of those states. Free men everywhere must be determined to resist communism. But it is a confusion, I think, of categories to think that communism as a doctrine or form of government must be fought by armed forces,

or that such is the purpose of the United Nations military action in Korea. When communism, or indeed fascism, results in acts of military aggression, that aggression should be met by any form of collective action, including military collective action, which can be made effective. But the purpose of such action is to defeat aggression. Communism itself, as a reactionary and debasing doctrine, must be fought on other planes and in different ways; by the use of economic, social, political and moral weapons. As Sir Norman Angell put it in a letter to the New York Times the other day:

The vital distinctions in this matter are not difficult or very obscure. We can overcome, and still better, deter, military aggression with military force . . . But if we use military power to dictate or to appear to dictate to other nations, Asiatic or European, what social or political or economic system they may adopt for themselves, we shall awaken a nationalism which in the end will defeat us.

Since the United Nations objective in Korea, then, is to defeat aggression, it follows, I think, that the methods used should be designed to limit and localize the conflict and not to spread it. As long ago as August 31, 1950, I said in this house that it was not the purpose of this government to support any course of policy which would extend the scope of the present conflict in Korea, a conflict which should be confined and localized if it is in our power to do that; also that United Nations policy should be to avoid giving anyone else an excuse for extending the conflict. Mr. Speaker, that is still our view.

One way by which the conflict could be spread would be by authorizing the United Nations commander in Korea to conduct aerial bombing of China. As I said on April 26 last in the house, it is possible to visualize a situation in which immediate retaliatory action without prior consultation might be unavoidable in pursuing enemy bombers back to, and in attempting to destroy, the Manohurian air bases from which they came, ft is our view, however, that the bombing, as well as the blockading, of China should, if at all possible, be avoided, since such action would involve grave risk of extending the fighting without, as we see it, any corresponding assurance that such extension would end the war. The history, the position, the social and economic organization, and the political situation in China would not seem to give much hope for any' such decisive result from such limited action. Indeed, it may be felt, on the contrary, that this limited action which has been suggested would inevitably develop into unlimited action against China, about the possible result

External Affairs

of which the Japanese perhaps are best fitted to give testimony. One result we can, however, expect with some certainty, and that is great satisfaction in Moscow over such a development. It may be that the Chinese communists, by indulging in massive air activity over Korea, will make some kind of retaliation necessary. They have, however, not yet taken such action, and in that sense have not yet conducted an allout war against the United Nations forces in Korea. As General Bradley put it in an address in Chicago on April 17:

Communist air intervention has not been a factor in the ground action to date. Neither has it been any serious threat to our air force.

If the Chinese communists change that situation, the responsibility for the consequence would rest entirely with them and not with the United Nations forces.

I am, of course, Mr. Speaker, aware that this policy of restraint in which all the governments who have forces in Korea concur to the best of my knowledge, may complicate the problems facing the United Nations commanders in Korea. These problems, however, in the opinion of many, would be immensely more complicated if the fighting were extended to China.

The question, I think, above all other questions at the moment, is, in short, whether aerial bombardment of points in China, together with a naval blockade and the removal of all restrictions from Chinese forces in Formosa, would be sufficient to bring China's participation in the war in Korea to an end without bringing about intervention by the forces of the Soviet union. It was felt by many last November that if United Nations forces advanced to the very borders of Manchuria and cleared north Korea of the enemy, the war would then end; that there would be little risk of communist China intervening, or, that, if it did, the intervention could be contained and defeated. As we know, and as I said last February in the house, it did not work out that way, for one reason or another. In the light of that experience, we should, I think, before we take any new decisions which will extend the war, be reasonably sure that this extension will have compensating military and political advantages. Let us not forget we would be playing for the highest stakes in history.

Another way in which the conflict could be extended, in the hope that it would be ended sooner, would be by facilitating and assisting the return to the mainland of China of the forces at present in Formosa under

External Affairs

the command of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. We should remember, of course, that these forces, or forces under the same command, have been driven from China by their own countrymen. The question to be answered, therefore, is this: Is there any

reason to believe that these Chinese nationalist forces now in Formosa would have greater success in China than they had previously, unless they were supported by troops and equipment from other countries which could ill be spared for such a hazardous venture, with all its possible long-drawn-out consequences?

The desire to localize the conflict and prevent it from spreading remains, then, our policy, though we must recognize that while it takes only one to start a fight, it takes two *to limit, as well as two to settle, a fight.

May I now say just a word in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, about our views-I have been asked about this in previous statements in the house-on the situation in Formosa. I believe that this island should be neutralized while fighting is going on in Korea. I have expressed that view previously. Certainly the United States of America cannot be expected to permit the Peking government to take over Formosa while that government is defying, and fighting against, the United Nations. It does not follow, however, that if and when the Korean conflict can be ended satisfactorily, we should refuse to discuss the future of Formosa within the context of international agreements that have already been reached concerning it, and indeed within the context of the United Nations charter. Any other course would, I think, result in implacable hostility between the United Nations and whatever government was in control of China at the time the war ended.

Until that war ends, however, and China abandons her attack against the United Nations in Korea, there can be, I think, no question of even discussing whether Formosa should be handed over to the Peking regime; at least that is our view. The same, I think, applies to recognition of that regime in Peking. There can be no question even of considering it while the Chinese defy the United Nations in Korea and fight against our forces there.

Nor do we think it realistic or right, while communist China is fighting in Korea, to include the Peking government in the current discussions of a Japanese peace treaty. In this regard, as in the case of the disposition of Formosa, the decision as to who shall talk and sign for China might well, I think- and even any discussion of this matter-be postponed until the Korean war is ended.

These are two questions which I know are uppermost in our minds these days. What is going on in the Far East? What is the policy of the alliance which has been built up, and which is getting stronger every day, to meet the dangers ahead, and within that alliance what is the relationship of a junior partner like Canada to its neighbour and its very senior partner in this association, the United States of America? It is not easy these days to be too optimistic about the course of events; but time is going on, and while time is going on we are getting stronger. In that sense, but only in that sense, time may be said to be on our side if we take advantage of it. If we do take advantage of it, and if we grow stronger militarily, economically and in every other way, then I think, as I have said before, that we have no reason to regard the future with panic or despair. But the remedy, Mr. Speaker, rests with us.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to refer the estimates of his department to the standing committee, I desire first of all to make reference to the work of the committee itself. In some respects the standing committee on external affairs stands alone so far as house committees are concerned. It was formed in 1945 and has functioned, we think successfully, ever since. In that committee the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been considered session by session, and in a cool and dispassionate way the work of the committee has proceeded from time to time.

Few committees have found hon. members more satisfied with their work and the way in which it is carried on. In saying that I want to pay a special tribute to the hon. member who since the inception of that committee has been its chairman. I refer to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), who has our confidence, and who has done a magnificent job in that capacity. Because of his temperament, his ability and his capacity, to say nothing of the industry that he has displayed in connection with the work of the committee, he is eminently suited for the post.

Particularly in view of the increasing complexity of international affairs, I am sure hon. members appreciate the fact that the work of the Department of National Defence is inextricably linked with that of external affairs. Time after time hon. members on this side of the house have made the urgent plea that the estimates and the activities of the Department of National

Defence be subjected to the same kind of comprehensive review as is directed toward those of the Department of External Affairs. While I have not made the plea before, although it has been offered by other members of this group and, I suggest, more effectively and more eloquently than I shall be able to do it, I now express the hope that, having in mind the success of the committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, the government will now see fit to take the further and the obvious step of setting up a special committee to study the estimates and operations of the Department of National Defence. This, I suggest, is a department the activities of which are akin to and closely tied up with those of the Department of External Affairs. When the committee begins its deliberations, and proceeds to deal with the estimates at hand, I shall have some suggestions to make.

I would hope that this year the committee would take the time to give careful consideration to the report of Canada in relationship to the United Nations because, for the last five or six years, not only has this country legislated in its domestic parliament here in Ottawa, but it has been legislating as well in what might be described as a world parliament. Too frequently hon. members in the house, and members of the public, are apt to take the deliberations in the United Nations too much for granted. In the committee on external affairs I should like to see made an intense study of the Canada-United Nations report for 1950. It contains the proceedings of United Nations sittings during the last year.

Further than that, I should like to see called to the committee those who were parliamentary representatives as well as departmental representatives, of whom there were quite a number. These representatives would be in a position to give a report on their stewardship rendered so effectively in New York. I should hope that in the committee we would have the opportunity to examine and to discuss in detail the work these members of parliament and civil servants did, in their efforts to put Canada's best foot forward at those important meetings.

We spend about $2,500,000 for representation on various conferences. Of this sum about $1,500,000 is allocated to expenditures in connection with the United Nations organization, assessment being made on a prescribed basis. These are facts the public ought to know. The budget in this respect ought to be scrutinized carefully, and a careful analysis made. As in connection with other estimates, hon. members have the right to

External Affairs

know exactly what is being done in the various branches of United Nations activities.

May I add one personal comment. Last year at meetings of the United Nations we were privileged and honoured to have R. Gerald Riddell, who has since been called to his reward, as our permanent representative. His name has been mentioned before in debates in the house, but this is the first opportunity I have had to refer to him. Gerry Riddell's death was a great loss to the United Nations and to the parliament and people of Canada. I knew of no more industrious, competent or capable member in any delegation than was Gerry Riddell, and I know he was so regarded by representatives from every nation in the world. Canada always had a worthy advocate to speak on its behalf, and one who commanded the respect and confidence of the representatives of all countries with whom he came in contact.

Perhaps it would be of interest to add that I have another special reason for referring to Gerry Riddell because at the end of a line drawn for sixteen or seventeen miles straight through the county of Peel, which it is my honour to represent, one finds the paternal homestead of the late Gerry Riddell. Another three or four miles farther down that line we come to the maternal homestead of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). At the end of the line, still farther down, at the boundary between Halton and Peel, is the homestead of Mr. John Watkins, our charge d'affaires in Moscow. In between and also in the same line, is the homestead of the member for Peel. I mention this because it may be of interest to others who are not as close to that county as we are.

In passing may I refer to two important figures with whom through the years many of us came in contact, in a greater or lesser degree. I mention first the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin, whom we met originally at the first general assembly meeting in London. The late Mr. Bevin was a dogged advocate for peace in his time, and so expressed himself at every meeting of the United Nations he attended. I have always felt that his unifying influence in politics in Britain during the war, and that same influence which was carried into the days of peace through his great work in the United Nations, is something for which the world is greatly indebted. It owed that debt to a great statesman and a champion of those things that are best in our public life.

I should like also to refer to another eminent world statesman who has passed to his reward only within the last few days, the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg. I remember so well witnessing at San

External Affairs

force, strength, might and power in these very difficult days. I think it will be understood and agreed, however, by most members in the house that force, strength, might and power alone are not the only weapons that this nation and free powers everywhere must consider in stopping imperialist communist aggression. I think that perhaps brings up this point, that this year we are spending on the other arm of our attack on communism, shall we say, $25 million on the Colombo plan for economic development in southeast Asia.

I realize, and I think the house will realize, that this is not the time to be making unnecessary contrasts between expenditures. Actually expenditures on military matters and defence generally are perhaps only in their infancy because the problem of preparedness still remains a very serious one for all of us on this continent. It is a serious one particularly when one reads the remarks made in the United States congress only last week by a senator who was a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations this year, and a man whose responsibility and competence are beyond question. Indicating the difficulties and the acute position in which this continent finds itself, I should like to refer to the startling words of Senator Lodge. In Time magazine for May 7, 1951, I find the following:

Best estimates credit Russia with a tactical air force of 16,000 to 20,000 planes, said Lodge, of which about 9,000 are free for an attack in the west. To assure air superiority to the proposed North Atlantic army, Lodge calculated that the U.S. and its allies need 18,000 tactical aircraft ready for battle. How do those figures stack up against U.S. strength, present and planned? At the moment, the air force has little better than nine fighter bomber wings-some 675 aircraft-available for support of U.S. ground forces overseas . . . "That," said Senator Lodge, "gives you some idea of the jam we are in."

When I call upon the government to give serious consideration to increasing the other arm, I do not want it to be understood that it is to be done at the expense of the critical military position in which this continent finds itself today. I do want to point out, however, that we must not neglect our economic defences because such countries as our sister units of our own commonwealth, India and Pakistan, are directly in the pathway of imperial communism. They are fertile grounds for would-be world dominators. I think a word ought to be said for the Indian and Pakistani people who have gone as far as they have in attempting to be bulwarks of democracy in the Far East. True, on certain occasions we are unable to go along with them on some world issues, but nevertheless they are sisters in the commonwealth. They are in the midst of a giant revolution

[Mr. Graydon.l

in Asia where a great melting pot exists, and today any widening of the breach between the east and the west would in my opinion not only be immediately fatal but would be fatal also in the very important days that lie ahead.

I have always felt that Canada and India are the two key nations in any close liaison between the Orient and the Occident. From the standpoint of our position in world affairs generally it seems to me that these two nations should do everything possible to maintain a close liaison, and in doing so to maintain a closer knit relationship between the east and the west. I admit that something has been done in connection with the Truman point four program of economic assistance to south and southeast Asia. I know there are plans oin. foot and on paper with respect to the Colombo commonwealth plan, but one thing that has always concerned me is that there has not been a close enough co-ordinated over-all plan for help from this part of the world for those underprivileged and underdeveloped countries.

As far back as last summer I suggested to the government and the Canadian people that we ought to have some kind of scheme, something in the nature of a Pacific economic pact, under which any assistance from this country would be properly co-ordinated and become much more effective than the hit-or-miss arrangements that have been put into effect from time to time. It seems to me that we in Canada have a grand chance to do something worth while not only from the point of view of the Canadian people but from the point of view of our sister dominions in the Orient, which in addition would show the world that we have a generosity and benevolence equal to that of any other country in the world. In setting up any such scheme, however, we must be careful not to put any of these people under the means test. I should like to see any policy we might adopt in this connection one which would integrate our economic progress with theirs in such a way that they might be brought up to the economic levels we enjoy in this part of the world.

Perhaps not every hon. member realizes just what conditions are in some of the lands to which I have been referring. In India, to take that one country as an example, according to research made by those in charge of the point four program, conditions are startling; and I think they should be made known to the Canadian people. I should like to quote just one paragraph from this report:

For example, in underdeveloped, overpopulated countries such as India, China, and Egypt, where the

average expectation of life at birth is in the neighbourhood of 30 years, only 54 out of every 100 children born ever reach the age of 15 and enter the ages of maximum economic productivity. Of those who reach young adulthood all but 15 die or are incapacitated long before completing the normal span of working life to the age of 60. In contrast, in the more highly developed areas 02 of every 100 children born reach the age of 15 and 70 live a productive life span to the age of 60. Reduction of the death rate in the underdeveloped areas will mean an increase in the human resources available for production in proportion to population.

At the same time improvements in health and physique will bring about greater capacity on the part of the individual worker. It is not surprising, for example, that the undernourished eastern peasant, afflicted With chronic malaria and host to a rich assortment of internal and external parasites, should commonly be a weak and lethargic worker.

The figures with respect to income are equally startling when compared with those of the western world. According to the last compilation of these figures the annual per capita income in the United States, covering men, women and children, was $554, while the figure for Canada for the same year was $389. The figure for India, however, was only $34. There is also the question of illiteracy. Back in 1930, which seem to be the last figures compiled for this purpose, 91 of every 100 people in India could not either read or write. That may give some idea of the problem facing the Orient which constitutes a challenge to all of us. Where we have something like 800,000 farms in Canada, there are 800,000 villages in India. It is interesting to note that four of every five people in the British commonwealth live in Asia.

I believe something ought to be done to speed up both the point four and Colombo plans, because there is nothing in which time is of greater importance. In my opinion aid to Asia is one of the most important of all the weapons we may use today to provide a bastion for democracy in that part of this power-drunk, war-torn world. But apart altogether from the point four program and the commonwealth Colombo plan for assistance to certain free nations for development purposes, the plight of the famine-stricken people of India and Pakistan calls for a supplementary short-range policy of immediate help. Starvation does not delay its paralysing work or wait for legislators to act. The western powers, including our own, must not be found asleep at the switch at a time when the train of golden opportunity is arriving. We should be doing something now to relieve the intense suffering of our sister commonwealth nations in Asia. It is in time of grief, need and acute distress that nations, as well as people, are most sensitive to the reaction of their friends. We should

External Affairs

be demonstrating to those in the great subcontinent of India our practical generosity and our sympathetic understanding. Red China has done it. For the second time since the famine reached its most devastating stage she has made available food supplies when her own larders are relatively empty. Russia, too, has made a political gesture of help. Other countries have given of their substance as well, but southeast Asians know where the most abundant wealth and resources are to be found, and for that reason the challenge to this continent becomes the greater. I believe the Canadian people as a whole want to help India and Pakistan, and I am offering the suggestion that if the government is reluctant to give a lead as a government to an emergency program for relief in these stricken areas, they should at least open the door and give Canadian citizens the opportunity of making their own individual contributions of food, clothing, medical supplies and the like and provide for the collection, transportation and effective distribution of same to the Indian .and Pakistani people. We should show these friends on the other side of the world that Canada cares.

In conclusion I should like to refer to one matter which has to do more particularly with the domestic field. The problems being faced by democratic nations in attempting to put on a wartime footing countries which are at peace cannot be overestimated. One of the things that concern many of us is the fact that there is an ebb and flow of interest and concern which flares up and then perhaps subsides into a period almost of complacency. That has happened before in this country; it may happen again. I feel it is the job of the government to give leadership. After all, the government has been given the job of leading the Canadian people, at the behest of the people as expressed at the polls some two years ago. I think it is important that the people be told in no uncertain terms exactly what is required of them, and just what our position is in connection with this struggle for peace. It should be indicated to the people across Canada in unmistakable language the patience, tenacity and perseverance that is going to be required in order to carry forward the great program of preparedness prior to the settlement of this impasse. They will want to know what is expected of them. They will want to know it in the terms that they understand. After all if we have, from time to time, the ebb and flow of concern and complacency, it will interfere with our preparedness program; it will interfere with whatever long pull there may be in connection with our preparedness plan. I see that

External Affairs

this very important matter has been referred to by the Hon. Herbert Morrison, foreign secretary of Great Britain. While perhaps many of us would not be prepared to agree with him that there will probably be a fifteen or twenty-year long pull, there will at least be a pull of some length of time. I believe that we have to steel ourselves to the emergency which faces us in the future. I believe that can best be done if the government will give the leadership that really leads in a case where leadership is urgently required.

During that period while we are preparing for such eventualities as may come, we must remember that at home we have our responsibilities and our challenges. While we are fighting for democracy, we must always remember that the democracy for which we are fighting is worth applying in our ordinary life in Canada.

I close my remarks this afternoon by repeating a quotation which is credited to Rene Grousset, and which I think perhaps covers the point I have made with respect to our own position in Canada much more clearly than any words I could have used. This is what he says:

In general, no civilization is destroyed from the outside unless it has already decayed from within; no empire is conquered from abroad, unless it has first destroyed itself. We are still the masters of our own destiny, and not mere spectators of our own downfall.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I think the house was very glad indeed that the minister of external affairs made a statement in opening this debate. The statement which he made, so far as I am concerned, to some extent has narrowed down the debate and made it unnecessary for me to say some of the things I intended to say. I quite agree with him that at this stage of our history it is essential that we shall maintain unity among democratic nations. No nation must dominate, and a decision once taken by the group must be supported by all the members of that group. I believe that is real democracy in action. Sometimes democratically adopted decisions do disturb minorities, but nonetheless under such grave circumstances minorities must fall in with the views of the majority unless the decisions do violence to their principles.

I quite agree with him, too, that aggression must be met by military force, but that communism, as we call it, cannot be met by force but must be met on the economic and social field. Many years ago someone said that if you would understand the external policies of a nation, you must first of all understand its domestic conditions and its internal policies. I think that has been

brought home to thinking people in our own country and elsewhere in recent years more than ever before. Where there is dictatorship and oppression at home, there is constant provocation and unrest with the threat of war abroad. It is in this respect that the economic situation in some areas and the international situation which arises out of economic conditions is, in my view, to be emphasized in a debate of this description.

When the United Nations was set up at San Francisco, member nations dedicated themselves to the advancement of freedom, of economic standards of living, as a means of preventing international misunderstanding and future wars. Yet today, in countries which adhere to the charter, millions of wretched people are the victims of despotic rulers, while millions of others are imprisoned in concentration camps because of their refusal to accept complete domination of their minds and thoughts by powerful and intolerant dictatorships. Nor must we forget that in other countries, including Canada, with democratic political institutions and ways of life, freedom for some, and at times indeed for many, has too often meant freedom to live in misery, want and despair. It is against this background of arbitrary rulers, despotic dictatorships and incomplete democracy that I wish to consider the world situation in this discussion.

We believe that the struggle in which we are now engaged, and which incidentally may last for many years, is for the liberation of the human spirit as well as for the economic advancement of individuals everywhere. Yet the real freedom of body and mind depends to a very large extent on economic liberation. We in this house, of course, all adhere to the conception of political freedom and democracy. There is no difference between us in this respect. But if we are to achieve the liberty of mind and thought which must be a positive aim of democratic peoples, Canada itself must move forward steadily towards the achievement of more economic and industrial democracy to accompany the political freedom which we all cherish. Hitler attempted to destroy political freedom over a large part of Europe, and he was in turn destroyed. But a large part of the world today is controlled by dictators who have rejected political and religious freedom as a principle of human progress, and who preach that social justice and economic stability must be purchased by the acceptance of their control and their tyranny over both the minds and bodies of the population to whom they dictate.

Their success, in large part, has been due to the failure of democracy as we know it to meet the vital needs of mankind. They

know that wherever there is starvation, want and despair, their propaganda will fall on fertile ground. In saying that, I am not either underestimating or decrying both the urgency and seriousness of the task of organizing the defence of the democracies in a military sense. What I am saying is that there is danger to the democratic world if nearly all our energies and resources are used up in building our military defences. This, of course, is one purpose of the Atlantic alliance. But one must realize that this alliance, based on co-operative effort in the military field, has been made difficult because the basic principle of the economic program is not co-operation but competition. Thus we see the efforts of the European nations to rebuild their economic and military strength made exceedingly difficult because of the competitive scramble for raw materials. That hap been demonstrated by the resultant high prices and threats of serious stoppages in production in the United Kingdom and in western Europe, because of the lack of vital chemicals, scarce metals and other supplies. Ir. the last war we found that competitive industry would not suffice. Now it seems that again we have to learn exactly the same lesson.^ Thus, among the members of the Atlantic alliance co-operation must replace cutthroat competition in those respects.

Neither can we afford to omit or restrain the equally important task of assisting in the improvement of the economic circumstances both of our own people and of the rest of the world, and we believe that means world-wide co-operative enterprise, too.

This party has I think endeavoured to emphasize this point of view both in parliament and across the country. We have supported, and we will support all the necessary undertakings and defence preparations essential to the protection of what we call the free world. We recognize of course that even among the so-called free nations there are varying degrees of freedom, and that it is not wholly free. Yet the limited freedoms which part of the free world enjoys are worth protecting, because they provide the foundations of the greater freedoms at which we all must aim.

Our external policy must take into account the fact that in parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, the rising tide of nationalism, of dire poverty of countless millions present us with both an opportunity and a threat. Because democracy has failed in the past to meet the desires and needs of such depressed peoples, totalitarian communist propaganda therefore has fallen on fertile ground. The success of the communist party in such areas indicates that they have seized

External Affairs

on those desires, the desires of the distressed masses, both in Europe and in Asia. It is, for example, not without significance, I think, that in the early stages of communist revolution in Russia itself, in Poland, in Hungary and now in Asia, they have made use of the peasants' need for land as a principal means of securing the support of exploited landless peasants. Whatever their future aims may have been, they have invariably placed the peasantry in possession of the land, even if subsequently they substituted collective state farms, thus eliminating both individual and co-operative ownership of the soil.

I do not think that in our dealings with backward areas we have paid sufficient attention to such basic needs of exploited populations. Indeed, no less a person than Kagawa, the famous Japanese Christian and democratic leader, has said that the resistance of South Koreans against North Korean aggression would have been stronger if land reform had been instituted to a greater extent than it was in the republic of South Korea.

Because of our failures in similar respects in the past, Soviet communism has become an immediate menace to the world. What I am trying to say is that an essential part of democratic world strategy should be the placing of greater emphasis on economic and humanitarian policies. We cannot van the struggle against totalitarian communism by military means alone. Indeed ultimate victory will lie with those who can do most to end poverty, misery and want wherever they may be found. Recent publications dealing with the Colombo plan have emphasized the dark picture of conditions in southeast Asia. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) this afternoon placed before the house some of the conditions that exist in that great subcontinent of India. In southeast Asia one-quarter of the world's population lives. Eighty per cent of the nearly 600 million people are directly dependent on the land.

The basic problem is food. We are told that in an area six times the acreage tilled in the United States, India, for example, uses only one-sixtieth of the amount of fertilizer used in the area under cultivation in the United States. Yet the land is old and has been cultivated for centuries. Its production is pitifully low. The instruments used are primitive. Again we are told, for example, that the United States has nearly 2J million tractors, while in India there are only 10,000. If I may quote from the Colombo report:

There is the application of modern tools and techniques which enables the farm worker in the United States to produce so much more per acre than the peasant in Asia. Power and machines are the key to plenty on the land-factories to make

External Affairs

lertilizer and instruments; machines to till the soil; drains to provide water for irrigation and to control the floods (and, incidentally, to provide electric power for the development of industry).

It is because in these countries, whose borders are not far removed from the borders of Soviet Russia, many of their people have seen technical assistance, machines, fertilizer and irrigation applied to some of the land in the Soviet union, that communism offers an enticement. Yet, with our technical knowledge, our industrial potential, we could assist the governments of southeast Asia to transform the economies of their countries in a comparatively short space of time and with a guarantee of ever-widening political as well as economic freedom. These are some of the considerations that we need to emphasize more clearly in our external relations and our defence of democracy.

I would like to see Canada give a very definite lead at the pending meetings of the economic and social council, and at the general assembly, for the immediate enlargement of technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries of the world. I am certain that public support would be forthcoming. This is a field at least where we should not wait for decisions in Washington. Indeed I believe that if we gave a lead now, public opinion in the United States would be encouraged to demand congressional support for the immediate advancement of technical and economic assistance to the underdeveloped and undernourished people of the world.

It would encourage the commonwealth nations, too, who are associated with Canada in the Colombo proposals, and indicate clearly that Canada believes communism cannot be defeated or contained by military means alone. Indeed in my opinion we should be placing emphasis where it really belongs, and Canada might in this respect at least give a lead both to our great and friendly neighbour and to the world generally.

So if I may refer again to conditions which make this a pressing problem: studies made by the United Nations have shown that the average food consumption in India, for example, works out at only sixteen hundred calories a day-or about half the amount which we consider to be necessary to enable a North American to do a day's work in comfort.

This situation has been aggravated by crop failure and by famine. It has been a disappointment to us that the government has failed to take any effective step to provide grain to relieve the famine conditions in India. The offer of low grade wheat, which was accompanied by a proviso that it should be sold and the financial return used for

technical improvements and so on, apparently could not be accepted by India. It seems to us that if we lacked sufficient milling quality wheat to meet India's needs, and provide quantities for export, we might have spared some of our own good wheat and accepted a Canadian loaf made from flour with more shorts and bran, a loaf of darker colour but one probably with a higher nutritional value for the Canadian people.

If it is true that Russia as well as China has offered substantial quantities of wheat and rice to India, it means that both Russia and China have made gestures which may have very favourable results for them in the days to come. The daily Indiagram, as it is called, issued by the Indian High Commissioner in Ottawa last Friday, May 4, recorded the fact that the British government had used its good offices to obtain ships for the transportation of grain and rice which India has purchased in China. Thus China seized an opportunity which both Canada and the United States failed to grasp at once, but which obviously the United Kingdom saw and did her best to take, so far as she could do so, in the field of transportation.

However the failure of both the United States and Canada to give immediate aid when it was requested makes it more difficult for us to retain the friendship and support we require from this important Asiatic country. And what is true of India is equally true of southeast Asia 'generally where, at best, food supplies are normally, almost permanently, inadequate. We must not overlook the fact that while production of basic food such as rice in southeast Asia is rising, and has risen-and indeed reached pre-war levels -the population has increased by 10 per cent since the war. So that the pressure is intensified to that extent.

The significant fact of which we must take heed is that the demand for national independence has been accompanied by a determination to improve low living standards in these areas. This desire must be met if governments like that of Nehru, which share our western ideals and belief in democracy, are to be maintained. It is a question of survival for these regimes to provide the masses of their countries with food and improved conditions. If they fail, they may give way to revolutionary movements promoted and controlled by the Soviet union.

This in my opinion is the lesson Canada should learn, and the lesson the world should learn from recent events in China. There, of course, a corrupt regime was in power and therefore the task of the communist forces was much more easily and readily accomplished. Nevertheless a basic factor leading

to their success was the deplorably low living standards of millions of Chinese peasants and workers. Poverty, low production, inflation, and corruption led there to the institution of a communist dictatorship.

There are now enlightened regimes in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and other places in southeast Asia. Perhaps the survival of human freedom in these areas-yes, indeed, across the world-depends upon our ability now to assist immediately in the raising of the standards of production and of living among the teeming millions of southeast Asia and other parts of the world where similar conditions are to be found.

And so it is that we of the C.C.F. wish in this discussion of our external affairs to emphasize that the only real cure for misery and want over wide areas of the world is the provision of more food and the means of producing it; and to emphasize also that this is the only way in which ultimately-ultimately, I say-Soviet imperialism can be defeated.

Of course, all this we must do under very difficult circumstances. We must do it at the same time as we are building our defences against totalitarian aggression in the military sense. The task is, of course, enormous; but we must face it or we shall ultimately lose the ideological struggle.

Primarily of course the problem is one which only we in North America can undertake. The strains on the only other country from which great aid could come, namely the United Kingdom, have become almost unbearable. She has already made a tremendous contribution to improved conditions in Africa, Egypt, India, Pakistan and elsewhere, in large part by the release of what are known as the sterling balances. Her lack of raw materials and her heavy rearmament commitments limit her ability to continue the flow of machines and other aid she has been sending to southeast Asia.

Indeed, as I have already said, the competitive grab for vital raw materials, and world inflation induced by competitive bidding, have reduced her ability to render the assistance she might otherwise have given. North America, through the Marshall and mutual-aid plans, has been largely responsible for having rehabilitated and given hope to the war-torn countries of Europe. We know that the Colombo plan, too, cannot be fully effective without a substantial contribution from both the United States and Canada. But, if we have to, we ourselves must go ahead and do what we can as a commonwealth. As I said, Canada

External Affairs

should take the lead if necessary, both as a member of the commonwealth and as a member of the United Nations.

So far it would seem that we have been inclined to place reliance upon the building up of our military forces, and this brings me to discuss perhaps more specifically Canada's own part in the solution of this great problem. I am not minimizing anything we have done in the past-because we have done a great deal in many respects-when I say that as a nation we have not done much more for southeast Asia than taken part in the United Nations and Colombo conferences, and made plans for some technical assistance to backward countries.

For United Nations' plans parliament has appropriated less than $1 million, and we are now making an appropriation of $25 million as a contribution to the Colombo plan. These appropriations have always been accompanied by statements recognizing the tremendous importance of south and southeast Asia to the democratic world, but at the same time emphasizing the limited nature of Canada's contribution because of our commitments under the north Atlantic defence proposals. Such statements were made several times before the Korean war, but we have been able since that time to find many more millions of dollars to expand our military and related expenditures.

This would seem to indicate that the government lacked both the vision and the courage a year ago to face the needs of depressed peoples as well as the will to combat communist propaganda among a quarter of the world's population, when we probably had a better opportunity so to do. Even a billion dollars spent in technical assistance and in the provision of food over the three ensuing years would have been only one-fifth of the money we appropriated for military expenditures and defence.

What I am saying is that our contribution to economic aid, to technical assistance and the Colombo plan should have borne some proportionate relationship in the past, and indeed now, to the amount we are now prepared to spend for the military defence of the democratic world. And in spite of our heavy commitments to the Atlantic alliance we believe we should be doing more in economic aid to depressed peoples than the government proposes at this time.

All this may seem idealistic to some people; but in my opinion it is the most practical method of preventing the onward march of Soviet imperialism-and that, after all, must be a main preoccupation of liberty-loving nations. The sooner we can assist

External Affairs

underdeveloped areas to provide more adequately for their populations, the sooner shall we be relieved of the necessity of economic aid, and be relieved, too, of enormous expenditures for defence against potential aggressors.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Does the

hon. member know what in fact we have done under the Colombo plan? I do not know.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

As a matter of fact the Colombo plan is still in a rather nebulous condition. Except for expressing a willingness to a limited participation under certain circumstances, as far as I know we have done no more up to the present time. Of course we sent a delegation to discuss the Colombo proposals.

As I have said already, we can play our part in the struggle against the substitution of a new and sinister communist imperialism for the old capitalist imperialism which is withering away if we follow economic policies in the aid of underdeveloped and depressed areas. In the past number of years we, of the C.C.F., have advocated social and economic policies which in early discussions across the country were called impractical and idealistic and even unnecessary. Today a large part of them constitute a major portion of our social security and welfare legislation, both nationally and provincially. As an example, earlier this very afternoon the house approved a motion which brings very near, we hope, an old age pension reform we have long proposed and which a few short years ago was criticized as both impractical and undesirable.

I believe that what I have said expresses the viewpoint of many thousands of serious-minded and thoughtful Canadians. Indeed such a policy conforms to the aims outlined in article 55 of the United Nations charter, which pledges Canada to respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and pledges us to assist in promoting, and I quote from the charter:

A. Higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

B. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and

C. Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

We not only pledged ourselves in article 56 to take joint action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55; we pledged ourselves also to take separate action when it was possible to do so. Our external policy

must ever keep in mind all the obligations we undertook in connection with the United Nations charter.

In spite of all the criticisms of the United Nations and the fact that it has failed to achieve all that was hoped for, it is still true that the United Nations is the one and only instrument available for the creation of a new and better world order. The very existence of the United Nations- assembly and the security council at least makes military aggression more difficult than it otherwise would be. Possible causes of war are brought under the scrutiny of world opinion and the danger of world war is reduced to that extent. Nor must we overlook the fact that in spite of the criticisms I have made of our inadequate aid to southeast Asia, the economic achievements of the United Nations through UNRRA, the Marshall plan, mutual aid, the international refugee organization, the children's fund and so on have been most encouraging, though we hear much less about them.

It is because democratic socialists have always recognized that the building of a just peace and a better world are dependent upon the effectiveness of international economic action that I have placed great emphasis on this phase of our international relationships today. Another member of our party speaking after me will say something about the other side of our defence problem. My time is not unlimited.

However, I would say again that we realize the necessity of maintaining the unity of the democratic world and defending it in every way against totalitarian threats of every sort. We recognize that while we blame, and properly blame, Russian communist aggression for the division that exists in the world, we are not unmindful that we on our side have made serious mistakes.

Much of the present world-wide unrest arises from agreements that were made during the war years by leaders of the western democracies in their attempt to maintain unity with the Soviet union. Today millions of people in the Baltic states-Bessarabia, Poland, parts of Finland-and indeed elsewhere-have every reason to remember the agreements reached at Teheran and particularly at Yalta. Nor must we forget that in days gone by our democratic countries indulged in the exploitation of many subject peoples. Even today we hear requests, particularly from some United States sources, for support for Chiang Kai-shek, for the retention of Formosa by the United States and for the extension of the war to China.

Along that path lies, we believe, another and more terrible world war. We think that now the United Nations forces are strong in Korea a new attempt should be made to secure a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement of the Korean war and related problems with the new government of China. After all, as Churchill said, it does control the mainland of China and is in fact the government for several hundred million people in that country. If we could achieve a satisfactory settlement, then much of the effort we are spending now in war and preparations for further eventualities could be diverted to peaceful progress and world-wide improvement in social and economic conditions. As I have said already, along such a path lies the possibility of peace and freedom. Canada should continue, then, to make every effort and use all her influence with the United States and our United Nations allies to achieve these ends.

Our suggestions, then, if I may summarize them, for laying the basis of permanent peace may be summarized in this form:

1. Let us urge immediate and strenuous efforts on the part of all free nations to use all the organs of the United Nations for the removal of the dire poverty, misery, want and exploitation which provide the fertile field for communist or fascist propaganda.

2. Let us ensure Canada's participation and leadership to a greater extent in economic and technical aid to depressed peoples and underdeveloped areas.

3. There should be a reconsideration- of Canada's commitments to the United Nations organization for technical aid and as a contribution thereto, because it may form part, the Colombo plan.

4. We should make positive proposals for the elimination of competition among the democratic nations for raw materials and essential supplies. If I may make the suggestion, this might be done by establishing a common or co-operative pool of such materials to enable a proper distribution of supplies among nations who can make an effort in this great defensive program.

5. We should continue to explore every possibility of a cease-fire in Korea and a negotiated settlement of the Korean and all problems related to the present difficulties with China.

6. Meantime, we should maintain our effort to make our proper contribution to the defensive forces of the democratic world.

7. I bring this once again to the attention of the government. I made the suggestion last year and I make it again today. We

External Affairs

should make an appraisal of our material, industrial and human resources so that our economic and military plans can be made and carried out to the best advantage to Canada and to the world.

These are some of the views that we wish to place before the government and the house concerning the policy of the government in relation to external affairs. As one of the nations able to give some economic aid, we urge that Canada should place emphasis upon that phase of the world problem at the present time and try to give some leadership so that we may begin a really comprehensive program to prevent the spread of communism, and to remove the possibilities of its growth among the underprivileged peoples of the world.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, my first words must be a reference to the passing of our friend, Mr. Gerry Riddell. I am expressing the feelings of all my group when I say that we regret very much the untimely passing of this promising young diplomat, a young man who in his few years of life made, I think, a very enviable mark in the field of diplomacy and international affairs. We shall miss his report to the standing committee, a report that was always full of facts and good things to think about.

I hesitate to launch on a lengthy speech at this time because I approach international affairs today with some diffidence. The reason I do so is that the world situation is so confused that it is hard to get at the facts. The minister emphasized the necessity of getting down to the hard anvil of facts rather than dwelling upon the shifting sands of emotion. That is true. That is why I feel somewhat diffident at this time about discussing such vast and important matters of policy. The world just does not have the facts, or at least I have not been able to ascertain them as yet.

The very controversy that is going on in the country to the south of us today over a matter of policy is one of the best evidences that it is hard to get at the facts. I do not intend to take sides in that controversy, but one is certainly led to ask just where the truth lies. I am afraid that in his statement this afternoon the minister did not shed very much light on the facts so that we can get right at them. I should like to mention briefly, however, the matter of our relations with our neighbour and ally to the south, the United States of America. I know that

External Affairs

we all appreciate the many peaceful years we have had with the United States, the fact that for so many years our more than 3,000 miles of boundary have remained unguarded by military forces, and that we have been able to get along so well with the people of that country.

I was not unduly worried when I read the report of the minister's speech in which he appealed to the United States to pay just a little more attention to a member of the family that had grown up a little. I was a member of a big family, and one of the youngest. I recall with what frustration I faced this interesting fact, that no matter how many whiskers appeared on my chin nobody in the family would admit that I had begun to grow up. That is a frustrating situation in any family. I am quite satisfied that what the minister had in his mind was a gentle reminder to the older members of this Anglo-American family that Jack Canuck had begun to grow up and get some whiskers on his chin. That does not hurt at all, and I think at the same time it is a gentle reminder to our neighbours that as we begin to grow up our voice -changes a little bit and takes on a little more of the nature of an adult voice.

I can quite appreciate what the minister was trying to do and I commend him for it. I do not think it has hurt Canadian-American relations in any respect at all. In fact I am satisfied it is going to be of considerable help, particularly when the minister and others from the government have to sit down with representatives from the United States of America to discuss the very important problems that will have to be discussed between us in the years ahead. I have in mind such things as the sharing of international waters. That in itself is a most important thing. I do not intend to- deal with it now. It is a matter that is under consideration at the moment, and I am hoping, together with many others, that a sound and equitable solution can be found to the whole problem of the division of these waters.

Another important matter which we will have to discuss, and as to which we will have to use a grown-up voice, is this whole matter of Canadian resources. The minister very aptly said today that Canada now occupies a very important position with respect to north Atlantic defence. That is quite true. As a matter of fact I think if any person will take the trouble to look into the situation he will -come to the conclusion that today Canada is the bulwark of American security. All one has to do is to look at the resources that Canada has, and to calculate their vast importance in the light

of diminishing United States resources. It is almost a godsend, an act of Providence, that our resources have been held in reserve for such an important and dangerous time.

What I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that in time we will have to sit down with our friends in the United States and discuss just how far they are going to be able to draw upon Canadian resources. We will have to be very careful because we do not want our resources depleted in the wanton way that resources have been depleted in some other countries. We should be prepared -to exercise the most careful vigilance to see to it that we conserve and develop Canadian resources largely in -the interests of the Canadian -people, and keep in mind particularly the needs and the rights of generations of Canadians yet unborn. Unless we do -that we are not going to be fair to ourselves nor to our -children and their children. It seems to me that, when we discuss with our friends across the line the contribution we shall make from Canada, those important things must be kept in mind.

In lending ourselves-and when I speak of ourselves I mean Canada-to the common effort to defeat aggression and to contribute to the germination and growth of that seed which they tell us is within communism and which if germinated and grown will destroy communism, let us use every effort to conserve our resources, and let. us take every intelligent means of preventing their waste and deterioration. I am sure the United States realizes the growing industrial might of Canada, her neighbour. I am sure she must realize that she will need some of the things we will be able to contribute to the common effort in the future, and those certainly should be used wisely to get a fair deal from the older and bigger member of the family.

Now I should like to say a few words about policy in Korea. I am afraid the minister did not shed much light on the tragically confused situation in that unfortunate country. I was hopeful that he would expand on the policy there, and perhaps help us understand a little more clearly where we are going. The minister did say we must uphold the purpose and will of the United Nations in Korea, but he did not tell us what that purpose and will really were. He indicated that the task assigned to the United Nations forces in Korea was to defeat armed aggression there, but what so many people in this country are asking today is this. How can the armies of the United Nations in Korea possibly perform the task and achieve the objective that has been set for them without some clear-cut plan and policy which will make that possible? There

is no such plan or policy in existence now so far as we know. The ousted commander of the United Nations forces, General Mac-Arthur, complained for months because of the failure to provide him with such a policy.

Just look at the impossible situation in which the United Nations has placed its commander and its gallant fighters. They can very well be compared with a champion who has been placed in the boxing ring with a challenger. The referee, in this case the United Nations, draws a line across the ring. Then he instructs the champion that he must whip the challenger before he can get out of the ring, but that he must not hit his opponent with everything he has, and he must not cross that line no matter how many thugs come to the support of the challenger in the other half of the ring. Moreover, no matter how often the challenger leaves the ring for refreshments, or rest, or to get more horseshoes in his boxing gloves, the champion must not leave his half of the ring for any reason whatever. He must take what is passed up to him by his seconds and do the best he can with that alone. "Stay right there until you win the fight." Those are the instructions he gets. There you have the situation. What kind of policy is that? How in the world can you expect your champion to get anywhere under such conditions? With his knowledge of organized sport and human nature I think the minister must admit that a champion needs a better plan and policy than that.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

If I may ask a question, would the hon. gentleman prefer to fight one challenger in half the ring, or two challengers in the whole ring?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

That is not the question. The

question is whether you are going to fight one in your half of the ring .plus a million coming in from the other half. The champion certainly needs a better plan than I have outlined. I believe a good many Canadians are beginning to object to Canadian boys having to fight against such odds as I have outlined. A good many Canadians are asking what hope these boys have when they go into the Korean battlefield today. It seems to me that such a fuzzy policy will have to be changed. My own forecast is that we will not win the struggle against aggression in Korea until the United Nations adopts a clear-cut, sharply focused policy which will give our armies at least a Chinaman's chance of winning a victory.

There is much confusion abroad, and I do not want to add to it, but I should like to ask this question. What about Korea herself? That has been in my mind for some time. I have wondered what effect

External Affairs

the terrible devastation of that country is going to have upon the prestige of the United Nations and the democratic countries of the world, the countries that are supposed to be guided by the interests of human beings. What are those countries going to say in the years to come? Almost a year ago South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help against North Korean aggression. The United Nations stepped in. The armies have rolled back and forth until the country is a shambles, its people homeless, hungry, disease-ridden, suffering and hopeless, a people on the move. The question we have to face is this. In the years .ahead how many small nations, the victims of aggression, will feel like appealing to the United Nations for support if they think about Korea and what has happened there since the South Koreans appealed for assistance. There has to be some answer to that question, and a more definite policy must be laid down to prevent that sort of devastation in any small country that may suffer aggression in future.

I have not seen any sign of such a policy yet. China stepped in. It was hard to follow everything the minister said, and I am trying to keep as closely as possible to what he did say in his address this afternoon, but I think he stated that China probably would not have intervened in the Korean affair if the United Nations forces had not threatened the Manchurian border. Is that correct?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

No, I did not say that. I

said there were those at that time who were worried lest the rush to the Manchurian border might result in Chinese intervention and there were others who thought that would not happen, or words to that effect.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

Well, there are those who claim that China would not have intervened had the Manchurian border not been threatened by United Nations forces last fall. I take issue with that statement. I do not think there is any evidence in the world to prove that it is so. The weight of evidence, it seems to me, is on the other side, because for months and months the Chinese must have been accumulating vast reserves of supplies and men in a rather isolated part of their country. They were able to launch a quick and powerful offensive when they did start. I cannot believe for one moment that they waited until the Manchurian border was threatened to accumulate those forces to launch aggression themselves. After the 38th parallel was crossed1 there was a fast movement towards the north border; we have to keep that in mind. I cannot possibly

External Affairs

believe that was not a matter of long consideration by the Chinese, perhaps at the instigation of Moscow who must have been needling the Chinese along for a good many months trying to get them to do the dirty work that Moscow was not prepared to try to do iherself. So, I cannot go along with those who make the claim I have just mentioned.

I see it is getting along towards six o'clock, and I do not want to prolong what I have to say. Let me just conclude with this, that I certainly find myself in agreement with the minister when he says that communism, as a debasing doctrine, must be fought on other than military bases. I agree with that. I do not think there is any questioning of the fact that the battle of ideas which envelops the world today cannot be settled by armed conflict. But, Mr. Speaker, what I think we will have to do is to set up a new concept of democracy, a different one from what we have had in the past. If we are going to win the battle of ideas, the free world will have to begin now-and it is late to start-revitalizing and rehabilitating democracy. They are going to have to go not less than the whole distance of translating the entire Christian concept into a policy of government, and see that that is applied in the interests solely of human beings. When that is done, then I think we will be ready to start the war of ideas.

There are those people who scoff at any appeal that some of us make for the need of divine guidance. I know that I have been called "corny" time and time again by the fellows in the press gallery for suggesting any such preposterous thing. I am now going to suggest again that we rehabilitate our democracy and revitalize it, and then having given it that new shot in the arm we are going to have to remove the confusion that envelops us by constantly appealing for divine guidance. Men just cannot see their way through the fog. We are lost in the fog. We have got to be prepared to appeal unitedly for divine guidance; and then, when we do get the answer, we must have the courage to go forward under that guidance and achieve our objective, which is of course world peace.

Let me end on this note, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that the greatest force for human well-being and peace in this world today is the commonwealth of nations. I do not hesitate to call it the British commonwealth, as I like to think of it in that way. It seems to me that we ought to be resisting with a whole lot more strenuous exertion the forces that are attempting to destroy that commonwealth. There are those forces, and

they have been working for years. Sometimes, unconsciously perhaps, we have lent our aid and assistance to those forces that have been trying to tear down and destroy this great force for peace and well-being in this world. If that commonwealth is rejuvenated, rebuilt and revitalized along the democratic lines which I have suggested, I cannot help but feel that what the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) appealed for, aid and assistance to the needy people of other nations, especially southeastern Asia, could well be met. This assistance would bring them closer to a feeling of kinship with the people of the western nations. But you cannot do it unless you develop and apply policies that are different from those we are following today; we are following now policies that are diametrically opposed to the welfare of human beings.

Mr. Speaker, I may have something more to say when the estimates are brought back into the house after the committee has discussed them. I am looking forward to the meetings of the external affairs committee where we usually consider the estimates. I am hoping that we will be able to bring before us the various key people of the department to give us more information concerning the things that have been done with the moneys appropriated. I hope we shall have a full report of Canada's participation in the United Nations, and I feel certain we shall get that. I believe, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall reserve any further remarks I may have until such time as the estimates come back into the house.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


LIB

Leonard T. Stick

Liberal

Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):

Mr. Speaker, in taking part in a debate on external affairs one is naturally conscious of not having all the information that the government possesses. I have no fault to find with this, because I recognize that much of this information is of a highly confidential nature and cannot possibly be made public. We have, however, enough information to speak generally on the foreign policy of Canada. I think that policy can be summed up in a very few words: one, the maintenance of peace throughout the world; two, peace through collective security by means of the United Nations; three, peace through strength. We are all concerned with maintaining peace. It is the overriding question in the minds of all decent people throughout the world. The

great question is how to bring this about. It is on this question that many minds differ.

In basing our policy on peace through collective security through the United Nations we do well to examine this organization. To do this it is necessary to go back to modern history, to examine how this organization was first founded and how it works.

After the first world war, or during the latter part of that war, the idea was born in the minds of men to form a union of nations to preserve peace. It was called the league of nations and met regularly at Geneva, Switzerland. It was chiefly sponsored by the late president of the United States, President Wilson, who became the leader of the movement. Unfortunately, when the late president tried to persuade the people of the United States to support the league, the idea was bitterly fought by the then leader of the Republican party, the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. How well he succeeded lies in the fact that the United States adopted a policy of isolation and did not enter the league.

Great Britain and the other members of the commonwealth did join, and supported the league wholeheartedly. Great Britain based her whole foreign policy on the league, indeed to such an extent that she disarmed to the point of national weakness. At this time the British commonwealth of nations was the greatest power on earth. It had the strongest navy, army and air force and there was no power to challenge it. By scrapping all this the commonwealth demonstrated its faith in peace and in the league to enforce it.

Whatever our opinion may now be of this action, history will record it as the greatest gesture for peace taken by any nation up to that time. Great efforts were made to strengthen the league; but unfortunately Japan, realizing she must expand to keep her place in the sun, marched into Manchuria to supply herself with what she needed to feed her growing industry and take care of her rapidly increasing population. This was the first great test of the league's ability to keep and maintain peace. It failed, and this episode of Japan's was soon followed by Italy's conquest of Ethiopia. Germany smarting from her defeat in world war I and suffering from inflation and the lack of employment turned to Hitler and his national socialist party as a way out. Under the driving force of Hitler, rearmament began to take place by leaps and bounds. The German army marched to the Rhine in defiance of the treaty of Versailles. Again nothing was done to stop this challenge to peace. The march to the Rhine was soon followed by the march into Austria, the Sudetenland and

External Affairs

Poland. The league by this time having become impotent to preserve the peace, the second world war began.

It is fair to say that although the league failed to keep the peace it had many successes in minor matters; but as an instrument of peace it failed. The second world war was fought with such brutality and savagery as the world had never before experienced; whole peoples were almost destroyed or uprooted, the loss of life and property was colossal. When the war ended, people, weary and sick of war, once again began to cast about for a way to end war and usher in an era of peace. For the second time we saw the attempt to bring this about when the principal nations of the world met at San Francisco to find ways and means to bring about peace to a stricken world and form an organization to this end. Thus began the United Nations. This time the United States played a prominent part in the formation of this organization and it can be said she was the principal sponsor and backer. The peoples of the world breathed a sigh of relief, and hope for a peaceful world once more occupied the minds of men. How effective has the United Nations been in preserving peace, and what are its future prospects in this regard, is the burning question of the day. We can only judge by events which have thus far taken place. Out of the welter of the many voices raised for the future welfare of mankind, two predominant ideas have emerged: First, the

communist idea that man exists for the welfare of the state; and, second, the democratic idea that the state exists for the welfare of man. Those are the basic ideas of life which occupy the minds of whole peoples today and for which the battle for the control of the human mind is now raging.

Whatever our idea may be of the Soviet tactics in the United Nations, there can be no doubt that if they wished they could have peace on terms very favourable to them; instead they have been doing everything possible to create trouble, hoping to discredit the democratic idea of life and sow dissension amongst those nations who believe in this free way of lfe. This is only understandable when we realize that the whole background of Soviet foreign policy is based on the belief that democracy and communism cannot live side by side and one or the other must collapse. Collapse means defeat with all the consequences that that entails. As Canada's foreign policy is partly based on collective security through the United Nations, it is necessary that we examine this organization and what its prospects are for enforcing

External Affairs

peace. There has never been an international force to punish an aggressor and to provide the means by which resolutions adopted by the United Nations may be enforced.

The history of the United Nations during its last plenary session does not encourage the idea that this association of nations can or will enforce peace. Rather, it has been one of dissension, name-calling and all that goes to make for disunity. Russia's coming back to the league was for no other purpose than to spread disunity among free democratic peoples of the world. How well she succeeded in this is all too evident. When the Korean situation broke, all the world with the exception of Russia and her satellites united in the effort to put down aggression, and a front in Korea was quickly attained. Now we have the democratic bloc in the United Nations that supported putting down of aggression in Korea haggling over how this struggle should be carried on, and instituting a peace measure when the military situation was going against us in Korea.

The greatest example of this has been the part played by India and its very able representative at the United Nations in the person of Sir Benegal Rau. This movement led by India, supported by other Asian nations, was well timed, and although I give them credit for the highest motives, namely the cause of peace, it was instituted at a time of weakness, and a just and lasting peace through weakness has never yet succeeded. It is difficult for the western mind to understand the motives of this peace movement. I endeavoured last year in speaking about this to try to portray how the oriental mind works. I do not wish to cover the same ground again, but I think it is necessary to state some facts as briefly as possible bearing on this subject.

Mr. Nehru in a broadcast on January 12 stated as follows:

Asia is essentially peaceful, but it is also proud and sensitive and very conscious of its newly-won freedom. It has mighty problems of its own and wishes to live at peace with the rest of the world, but it is no longer prepared' to tolerate any domination-or any behaviour after the old pattern of colonialism. Nor should we forget the millions of people who are still under colonial status in Africa and elsewhere.

The National and English Review of February 1951 has the following comment:

Mr. Nehru is admittedly Prime Minister of India; but he is not prime minister of Asia or Africa, and he has no right whatever to pontificate on those subjects. If he means to imply that the Americans, Australians, British and others, who are dying in Korea at the hands of "peaceful" Asiatics, are behaving "after the old pattern of colonialism" -whatever that may mean-he needs to be reminded that his own country is spending about half its

tMr. Stick.]

budget on military preparations against its neighbour, and that he is therefore in no position to lecture others on the inherent peacefulness of Asia.

The three nations of the Indian subcontinent are fully fledged members of the commonwealth and no good can come of the pandering to them or treating them like hypersensitive neurotics. They are obviously quite willing to tell us what they think of us, and we should not hesitate to return the compliment.

India and1 Pakistan, more especially, are not only the leading Asiatic nations of the commonwealth; they are also, as regards population, the two largest nations of the commonwealth. Yet their whole strength is at present turned inward and, while they are preaching peace to the rest of the world, they are preparing for war with each other over Kashmir.

We do not suggest that either side is intent on war; their preparations may be purely defensive. We understand the religious principle which Pakistan is striving for, and the secular principle for which India stands. We appreciate, too, the economic importance of Kashmir, and the wider problem of minorities, with its inflammatory effect upon public opinion in both countries. Nevertheless we deplore their failure to reach an agreement, or at least some form of modus vivendi, which would enable them to co-operate actively with their partners in the commonwealth and other friendly powers in resisting the lawless use of force and creating a fairer balance of power in the world.

This quotation which I have just read is the west's analysis of Mr. Nehru and his motives, and although it is true in fact, it yet does not give us the background for Mr. Nehru's actions, or the motives that lie behind those actions. In this regard I further quote a page from a book called "A Prince of the Captivity" written by John Buchan, the late Lord Tweedsmuir, and former Governor General of Canada. I know of no other words so well written and put in such -concise form to explain the oriental mind and its attitude to life in general.

In this book the author is describing an interview by a young man being trained for the intelligence service and who is sent to interview a character known as Mr. Scrope who is supposed to be a sage of the East. The import of those words to my mind is the secret of what is influencing the thinking of Mr. Nehru and the peoples of India at this time.

Mr. Scrope seemed to have a genius for the discursive, but his reminiscences were directed1 to one point especially, the everlasting differences of east and west. His chief instance was the virtue of courage. The east he said, which did not fear the hereafter, was apathetic toward the mere fact of death, but it had not the same fortitude about life.

It was capable of infinite sacrifice, but not of infinite effort, it was apt to fling in its hand too soon and relapse upon passivity. On the other hand the west when it had conquered the fear of death demanded a full price for any sacrifice. Rightly, said the old man, since man's first duty was toward life. !

With all the good will in the world toward Mr. Nehru and the peoples of India and Pakistan, who are very lovable people, I

regret to state that their actions to -bring about peace thus far in Korea are not based on peace through strength. To me they are based on peace by appeasement or peace at any price. To follow the leader of the East in this regard would be a fatal step for the West to take. It would be interpreted throughout the Orient as a sign of our weakness, and the Orient has always followed those who are strong and can enforce their strength. Furthermore it is a denial of our policy of peace through strength; and we in the West, however much we desire peace, cannot bring ourselves to believe that a just and lasting peace -can be brought about by such means. The weakness of the United Nations lies in the fact that it has no official international force to maintain peace. It was the recognition of this fact that brought about the Atlantic treaty which we did so much to institute and which we are doing so much to maintain. For the first time in history we have today a United Nations force fighting to stop aggression. What happens in Korea could very well mean the dawn of a new era or the downfall of the United Nations. The issue is now joined for good or ill.

Ever since the world was created and man came to inhabit this earth two forces have been- working to which all peoples are subject. They are commonly called the force for good and the force for evil. Man has been given a free choice in this matter. The struggle which we are now engaged in is a struggle for men's minds, and we as individuals and as a nation must make our choice as to what course we will pursue. We as a people and as a nation with long centuries of Christian tradition behind us cannot accept the idea of a communistic state whereby man is reduced to the status of a slave to the state. We must at all cost adhere to the Christian belief whereby we should treat our neighbour as we would have him treat us. If we are to resist the

evil influence of communistic doctrine this nation must be united as never before. Already -there are signs by the enemy in our midst to try and sow the seeds of dissension among us on religious and racial grounds. Whatever our honest differences may be in this regard it must never be allowed to divide ,us in this fight for peace in which we are engaged. This fight is nothing more or less than a fight for our very life, and it can only be fought successfully by closing our ranks and by a unity of purpose which should transcend all other considerations. We can win this fight only if we are united as never before.

External Affairs

There can be no real peace without freedom, neither can there be peace without honour. The freedom of Canada is involved in this struggle, it is a glorious heritage of our past; in this respect there can be no compromise. Our honour is involved also; there must be no question of where we stand on honour.

This is your country, it is my country, it is our country, it is Canada. Together then as Canadians let us go forward and win, faithful to the proud heritage which is ours, faithful to the principles of truth on which we take our stand, and above all our belief in the justice of our cause. I know of no better words than those of Kipling, who said: Teach us to look in all our ends,

On Thee tor judge, and not our friends;

That we, with Thee, may walk uncowed By fear or favour of the crowd.

Teach us the strength that cannot seek,

By deed or thought, to hurt the weak;

That, under Thee, we may possess Man's strength to comfort man's distress.

Teach us delight in simple things,

And mirth that has no bitter springs; Forgiveness free of evil done.

And love to all men 'neath the sun!

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesl):

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention on entering this debate to stress the fact that Canada has now come of age internationally. No longer are we to be permitted to hide under the policies of no commitments of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. We -are now a full partner, and whether we like it or not other nations expect us to act our age. External affairs are now our most pressing problem. The problem of inflation, our military production, our manpower problems, our burden of taxation and the expenditure of priceless lives of our best citizens, all are due to forces which originate outside Canada. What I say about events which are taking place externally has an immediate effect on our national life.

It has been my privilege to have lived for the past three and a half months in central Europe, a considerable part of the time being spent in Russian controlled territory, behind the iron curtain. I believe this has given me an opportunity to view the present situation objectively and, to a degree at least, from the European point of view as I -had not seen a Canadian newspaper or heard a Canadian political opinion from the second of January until my return recently.

The opinions I have are not likely to be popular. No conclusions are which must stress the danger of imminent war. We in Canada are fond, so fond, of talking about

External Affairs

what we want and shunning discussion of what we may get. What I propose to talk about is what we may get and the military consequences of our political wis'hfulness.

Up to the present the offensive from the military and political point of view has been taken by the Russians. The Korean war, the Viet Minh attacks in Indo-China, the bloodshed in the oil fields of Persia, and the rearming of eastern Germany are all part of the same offensive. From the debauching of the security council of the United Nations to the mockery of the meetings of the foreign ministers' deputies at the Palais Rose in Paris, the Soviets have been, and still are, the wreckers of unity. The western powers are still thinking defensively. We still believe we can deal through diplomatic channels with Stalin, just as we wishfully hoped to be able to do with Hitler. People who think this way furiously resent being called appeasers, yet their actions have the effect of appeasement, just as much as did Runciman's visit to Prague or Chamberlain's trip to Godesberg.

The first aim of Russia is to cause trouble, chiefly political trouble between the western powers. In this she has had a marvellous ally in the anti-American British press. In January when the first onslaught of the communist Chinese hordes all but drove the United Nations forces, including a United Kingdom and commonwealth brigade, out of Korea, the British press did nothing but cast doubts on the effective direction of the war. English papers were full of opinions about the folly of crossing the 38th parallel, despite the fact that most of them had said nothing when the forces under General Mac Arthur were approaching the Yalu river and the Manchurian boundary. When reverses took place, the British hatchet brigade in Fleet street was mobilized to a man.

Questions were raised about the fighting qualities of the United States troops. Even the Times, whose power to thunder has now degenerated, until it has merely the status of a pompous squeaker, with little worm words of petulance and pontifical editorials of corroding doubt joined the fray. If the United Kingdom press had no salacious sexual abnormality to report, they concentrated on some anti-social behaviour in the United States and treated American news generally either with derision' or scorn. So obnoxious did this become that I, as a Canadian who was educated in England and regarded her as a spiritual home, turned away in disgust. I happen to know that my feelings were shared by many Americans in London. I say this here in the House of Commons in the hope that some notice will

be taken of my protest. This campaign of derision and scorn carried on by the British press is in very truth playing Stalin's game.

In this connection this anti-American feeling which has been generated is referred to quite clearly in an editorial in the Daily Mail of April 26 where it is mentioned as being one of the most dangerous things we have to contend with in our fight for freedom.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

David Arnold Croll

Liberal

Mr. Croll:

Has the hon. gentleman never read the Chicago Tribune?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

Because there happens to be evil on one side is no reason to condone evil on the other. Two wrongs do not make a right.

On the continent it is apparent that there is a distinct rebirth of nationalism which I shall call neo-nazism. This has grown quite quickly in the past year and the causes for it are exactly the same as those which brought about the national socialism of Hitler. One of the reasons is that today, in both Austria and Germany, there is a degree of unemployment, varying in intensity in different sections, but everywhere serious enough to cause insecurity. This is intensified by the economic pressure on the labour market of many thousands of displaced persons from parts of Germany now ceded to Poland, and Volksdeutsch from Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe, as well as by refugees from communism who have escaped from behind the iron curtain. These latter people are stateless and are living on temporary permits as visitors more or less on sufferance. Their presence naturally undermines the wage structure. Under Hitler everyone had work and was paid in money that had real purchasing power. Today we must not ignore the fact that democratic principles are a poor substitute for security and a full stomach.

I would emphasize also the void left in the minds and souls of the Hitler generation by the defeat of nazism. These people had no other gods but Hitler and they are now suspended in a vacuum, finding little to cling to in democracy, which they do not understand. Fortunately, the older people are not affected and the youngsters of high school age are not contaminated. Having spent a day with a high school group, 1 found no trace of the old arrogance which would have certainly shown itself in 1938 or 1939.

The political significance of the surplus population problem was demonstrated recently in the provincial elections in Schleswig-Holstein. There a political party representing the voice of the displaced German national

has, I believe, actually elected the largest group in the legislature. The firm stand Chancellor Adenauer has taken against the Socialist Reich's partei, the neo-nazis led by men like General Heinz Remer, who frustrated the plot against Hitler, and Dr. Franz Richter, a fiery schoolteacher orator, is to be commended, but the coming elections may show Socialist Reich partei gains in the provinces of Rhineland-Pfalz and Lower Saxony.

The rest of the free world, but particularly Canada, has a responsibility to see to it that an effort be made to remove this surplus population and provide these people with productive work. I am inclined to disagree with statements that these people do not desire to emigrate, and from personal observation I would say that many thousands would come immediately if a real campaign was put on to get them. I will discuss immigration later, but just let me say in passing that we can be extremely proud of our immigration missions in Europe. They are doing a tremendous job under great pressure, and are in many cases seriously overworked.

The economic problems of central Europe are, apart from the hideous cost of an army of occupation, almost exactly the same as those which brought about the expansion of the Third Reich under Hitler. Austria, with a third of her population in the city of Vienna, cannot exist unless she becomes part of a Danubian block or unites again with Germany. With the Danube now a Russian river, the formation of a Danubian block seems impossible for many years. The economic urge for union with Germany will become inexorable, despite the statements of the present Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Figl, and the no doubt genuine feelings of other Austrian leaders. Austria is not and cannot be made into another Switzerland. Geography alone prevents it.

Coming now to Russian occupation of both Austria and Germany, it is my opinion that the Soviet power intends to continue this forever. The inescapable conclusion which must be reached is that the Soviet armies will remain in central and western Europe until they are driven out by superior force. The conference table is, as is being made abundantly clear at the Palais Rose in Paris, a symbol of futility, and the western diplomats who go to conferences with the Russians should be armed with automatic record players so at least they would be able to listen to music rather than the harsh, explosive invective of the Russians. They should also be awarded the "Order of Job".

The rearmament by the Russians of east Germany is now so obvious that it can no longer be disguised. The creation of an east

External Affairs

zone "luft politzei", which in other words means an east German air force, has been observed by so many competent observers that its existence, size and composition have become generally known. Up to now it appears that the east German army is organized up to battalion formations. To train brigades or divisions, the German troops now under arms will have to be moved into Russian training areas in Germany. If this occurs this spring, as seems likely, it is an unmistakable sign that action, possibly similar in form to the outbreak in Korea, has been transferred from the realm of the possible to that of the probable. Here, Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that Russia has added in the last week to her thirty divisions already in east Germany.

The place to stop the Soviets is where they are now, not on the Rhine, and certainly not at the English channel. It is defensive thinking to talk about stopping the Russians on the Rhine; it is defeatist thinking to talk about stopping them at the channel. If we are to have allies in Europe, we must prevent their countries from being overrun, their industries either destroyed or working for the enemy, and their manpower aiding him, even though unwillingly. No European country wants to be liberated. They may be wrong in this, but nevertheless this is how they feel and this sentiment is very strong both in France and Italy. Never again must the free world allow the continent of Europe to be overrun. If we do, I say with all the emphasis at my command that our cause is lost.

Conditions behind the iron curtain in Germany and Austria have been reported on so often in the press that they have become generally known. Nevertheless, to actually see the devastation and wreckage caused by the Russians comes as a shock. The Russian has a character similar to the wolverine; for what he cannot use he spoils. I have seen such towns as Wiener-Neustad't where not only has the machinery been removed from the factories but the very buildings have been levelled until not a wall is left standing.

The difference in the attitude of the people in the western and Russian zones, both in Austria and in Germany, is immediately apparent. In the cities there is an ominous feeling of tenseness. In the country there is a sense of desolation. As one approaches the Russian zone, two things become apparent. The first is the tremendous courage of the people, and the second is the respect for the judgment of Winston Churchill and the tragedy of the naive idealism of President Roosevelt.

The Russian occupying forces are treated by their own authorities with great suspicion.

External Affairs

Not only are they never allowed out of barracks on duty singly, but when not on duty they are constantly and continuously confined to barracks. The fear that they will become contaminated by the free world, particularly in Vienna, is very great. Even at the opera quite senior Russian officers never appear except in groups of three or more, and I never saw any other ranks at the theatre. The Russian on duty is invariably armed with an automatic weapon slung over his back. Checks and searches are frequently made in public places, on street cars, and in restaurants in the Russian zone, and any irregularity in one's papers or identification inevitably means a trip to the commandatur and at least questioning for several hours.

The number of people in Vienna who just simply disappear is enormous. This constant threat naturally keeps the people in the Russian zone in a perpetual state of fear. What the Russians are doing in the territory under their control gives us an idea of their intentions. Industries whose products cannot be used by the Soviet are either destroyed or their operation severely hampered. On the other hand, factories, mines, oil wells or any other productive enterprise whose products are of use to the Soviets are working at full speed, and all the goods produced are sent into Russia or used to aid the Soviet economy elsewhere. No payment of course is made for any natural product used.

Soviet propaganda is to be seen everywhere. Outside the Russian headquarters large glass-covered notice boards describe the joys of life in the Soviet union, and on all the public billboards Soviet propaganda of the most violent type, generally directed against the Americans, is displayed. To counter this the free world, with the assistance of the Marshall plan, has used some very effective measures, particularly at the recent trade fair in Vienna. In the east zone of Berlin, notices were displayed of the Rosenbergs, who were called martyrs for peace; and I was informed, although I did not see it, that there is a monument to Fuchs, also classified as a martyr for peace.

Nowhere in Europe was I so impressed with the courage and the fierce determination to resist as I was in Berlin, A visit to Berlin is a tonic, and one is reminded of the words of Schiller:

The dignity of mankind is entrusted to you, guard it; it is you who degrades it; it is you who elates it.

Not only have the west Berliners set about the job of rebuilding their city from the greatest pile of rubble in history, but they have fiercely fought for their freedom. At the university several of the professors have

been warned that their continued teaching of the evils of communism has marked them as enemies of the Soviet union, and therefore subject to instant liquidation if captured or kidnapped. Nevertheless they continue to preach freedom. The student body, instead of seeking sympathy and being filled with self-pity, is full of fight and working to rebuild Berlin culturally as well as physically. It would do a lot of good to a great many Canadian students who are today complaining of their life to spend a few months at this university. I would also like to see a number of our Canadian professors who are toying intellectually with the merits of communism and socialism to take a refresher course in courage and the dignity of man at the university of Berlin.

One would wish that the spirit of Berlin could be duplicated in all western Germany, but unfortunately this is not so and the old German trait of self-pity is again being practised. It must be said, unfortunately, that to a large degree the German today Is unreformed and unrepentant. Nevertheless, and despite this, the western powers are forced to come to a decision in Germany almost immediately. As I have said, the place to stop Russia is where she is now, and to do this we must have the help of the western German. Therefore we are directly faced with the problem of rearming the Germans. It is my belief that this step must be taken and it must be taken at once. We cannot expect to get much support from Germany unless in the war we are now fighting we treat her as a full partner and give her full national status. The Germans cannot be treated as mercenaries, and they cannot successfully be formed into small units in a European army under nonGerman command. They will resent this and the feeling of neutralism which exists today will become more powerful. The German, despite what we may think of him, is a human being and has the same love for his country that any other national has. He cannot be persuaded to fight for some nebulous concept of democracy, but he can be persuaded to fight for the defence of his own country. Therefore it is necessary to face this difficult problem squarely and realistically. The free world must either be prepared to enormously enlarge its armies in Europe or we must recognize Germany as a full partner in the fight for freedom; otherwise we run the danger of losing Europe and, if we do, the cause of freedom may be lost forever.

I would like to pay tribute to the excellence of the work being done by the ECA. I feel it would not be too much to say that

had we not had this farsighted program, Europe today would be largely under communist domination. The work done by Paul Hoffman and his associates may prove to have been the turning point in our fight for freedom.

It is easy to get an impression of despondency and defeatism in the cities of Italy and France. Particularly is this true of Paris. As an example of this, I cite an experience I had in the early part of last month when there was a transportation strike and neither the busses nor the metro was working. The French army put on a number of trucks which helped to get the people to and from work. In each truck I rode in there was a notice to the effect that this service was being given to Parisians by their army. It seemed to me to be working quite satisfactorily, under the circumstances. However, I heard this remark made by Parisians several times during the strike: "Oh, the army this time has its transport ready so they will be able to escape and not be caught as they were in the Maginot line in 1940". To hear remarks like this and to see the horrible defeatism of the French intellectual is certainly disconcerting, and one would think that French pride was a thing of the past.

I do not, however, believe this to be the case because there has been a tremendous resurgence in rural France. Agricultural production has increased to a point where France is reported to have food for export; the electrical system on the Rhone is probably the greatest in Europe; French industry is producing in terms of goods 30 per cent more than it was in pre-war years; the birth rate has increased to the highest since the turn of the century; rolling stock on the railways has been improved, and the harbours rebuilt; communism, even in the worst unions, has declined by as much as 30 per cent, and I feel sure that if-and unfortunately it is a big if-the new electoral reform bill becomes law the number of communist members in the next chamber of deputies will be more than cut in half. Nearly 30 per cent of the 1951 French budget is to be spent for defence and even the collection of taxes has improved, until today the tax revenue of France expressed as a percentage of the gross national product is higher than that in the United States. All this, however, will be lost to the free world if France is overrun again.

Coming to the United Kingdom, I feel that there are certain forces at work here which are, to say the least, unfortunate. I

External Affairs

speak of the efforts being made, consciously or unconsciously, to create trouble and cause friction between England and America. There is a growing feeling of what is called "bloody-mindedness" today in England, I certainly do not intend to discuss British politics, but I had the privilege of being in the House of Commons at Westminster when the question of the policy pursued by General MacArthur and his dismissal by President Truman was discussed, and the anti-American sentiment was very apparent.

There has been no time in history when Anglo-American solidarity was so important, and there has never been a time when North American unity has been so vital. Therefore anything which gives the communist party and the leftist press of Europe any opportunity to show dissension between England and the United States or Canada and the United States is most dangerous. In this regard I regret to state that the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in Toronto provided the enemies of freedom with an excellent opening. I do not say that the minister should not have spoken as he did, although I think his timing was bad. And I do not say that any cabinet minister or any member of this house should be prevented from criticizing any action of the United States government or any individual in that government, or any individual American, with the utmost freedom. I myself in the past have severely criticized the actions of the United States treasury and its domination over the international monetary fund, and I propose to do so again during this session.

The speech of the minister was regarded by the forces now busily at work in Europe sowing Anglo-American discord as a wonderful opportunity to say that Canada too resented Yankee imperialism. The headlines in the English papers certainly intensified this feeling. I shall quote a few of them:

Manchester Guardian: April 11:-"Take more notice of Canada, Mr. Pearson warns U.S. ..."

Daily Eocpress, April 11"Canadian External Affairs Minister L. B. Pearson plainly told the U.S. Canada is not willing to be her echo." "He declared that both countries would get along better if the U.S. realized that Canada was not willing to be merely an echo and took more notice of what Canada did and said." "Not always easy. But these relations would not always be easy and smooth. There would be difficulties and frictions." Daily Telegraph, April 11"Canadian minister warns U.S. dominion will not be echo. Plea to settle friction." "A warning to the United States that Canada was not willing to be echo." "Mr. Pearson described Canadian-American relations as one of the most difficult and delicate problems of foreign policy that has yet faced Canada."

External Affairs

"Most Canadians resent being called a reluctant friend." Glasgow Herald,:-"Delicate Canada-United States relations." The Scotsman:- "Canadian minister on relations with U.S. difficult and delicate problems."

Paris Presse L'Intransigeant: "M. Pearson laisse

prevoir des frictions entre le Canada et les U.S.A."

These statements are not the statements of the minister, but they are the headlines showing the interpretation placed on his speech. Most of the papers are Conservative, but one can well imagine the field day the communist and leftist press had with this statement.

We are today in an acutely dangerous situation. No decisions which we can make are ideal; all involve compromise. I am convinced, however, that we must show the utmost courage and resolve.. We face a ruthless enemy who understands nothing but force. The only way to treat communism is by quickly giving it a bloody nose wherever it attacks. Any nation or any form of government which has to lock up its troops lest they become contaminated by freedom is not a strong nation nor a strong government, despite the tyranny it practises and the number of divisions it has at its command.

There are abundant signs of great restlessness in the satellite countries. These signs may not lead to open revolt but, Mr. Speaker, man was not made to be a slave. Any individual, any regime or any country which tried to enslave mankind has always been destroyed. It may take time, it will certainly cost lives; but, Mr. Speaker, the time it takes and the lives it will cost can be lessened only by the western powers standing together in the fight for the freedom and dignity of man.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, for the first time in several years, I attended a baseball game between the Ottawa Giants and the Montreal Royals at Lansdowne park. While observing the game, and the large, intent and at least temporarily happy crowd, I thought, what a typically Canadian scene! There one saw Canada's highest ranking diplomat and some of his officials responding to a good throw or an exciting double play with the same mercurial manner as the school boy of tender years and smudgy face. Mr. Speaker, that and similar scenes across this country are of daily occurrence, and are constant reminders of the deep-seated foundations of our developing democracy. All we ask in the conduct of international affairs is that the tolerance and fairmindedness and the sportsmanship of the playing field be exemplified in the observance of international rules. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is all that Canada asks.

For the first time in human history, rules for the conduct of international affairs have been drafted by mankind, and those rules are now found in the charter of the United Nations which the Canadian people wholeheartedly accept and support. We cannot at this time expect complete agreement and understanding between nations. Deep-seated national interests and rivalries, varying traditions and experiences will, without doubt, for some years engender misunderstandings and disagreements. In my opinion these disagreements will not threaten the peace of the world if the nations of the world obey the rules laid down by agreement and found in the United Nations charter.

However, as people given to observing the rules, Canadians cannot stand idly by and witness strikes called against them when the ball does not pass over the plate. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the centre of interest and main anxiety in Canada at this time is Korea. After ten months, the military and political situations are no nearer solution. The group of which I am a member has given serious consideration to these most important questions, and the proposals I wish to make in this connection represent the consensus of the C.C.F. group in this house.

I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) thi9 afternoon. Before proceeding I believe it is only fair to say that we all recognize the very heavy responsibility he carries during these very difficult and trying times. Mr. Speaker, we admit that the minister has represented Canada in a splendid way at the United Nations. I am quite sure it is safe to say that the great majority of the Canadian people recognize his ability, his sincerity and his capacity. Mr. Speaker, we agree with the statement made by the minister when he indicated that the government supported the policy of localizing the conflict in Korea as far as possible. On an assessment of all the circumstances and conditions, we believe that is a sane and sound policy at this time. We also agree with the statement that the government considered that the position with respect to Formosa should come within the scope of the United Nations. I believe that is the only practical and sound way to approach that question.

However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree with the minister's statement that, for the present, the role of diplomacy must come second to military operations. At that point we differ with the minister in his statement of policy this afternoon. We in this group believe the time is opportune for another attempt to settle the Korean question by negotiation. I shall quote an excerpt from

a broadcast speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs over the trans-Canada network on December 5, 1950, in which he said:

I know that the policy I suggest will be called "appeasement" by some. "Warmonger," "fascist," "appeaser," "red," "peace," "democracy," such words are now used so loosely and irresponsibly that their coinage has become debased. So let us not be frightened by words. The action which was taken at Munich in 1938 and which has made "appeasement" a byword, was open to two charges: That it was shortsighted because it was based on illusions about the nature of the government which was the aggressor at that time, and that it was shameful because it sacrificed the freedom of one country in the interests of the security of others. Neither of those accusations can be brought against the policy I have outlined. It is not appeasement. It is an attempt through diplomacy to reach a modus vivendi with the Asian communist world.

The United Nations commander in Korea himself has remitted to diplomacy the task of deciding what to do in Korea in this new situation created by Chinese intervention. It is the function of diplomacy to seek accommodation which can be the basis for stable relations between differing countries and systems. We have agreed in the past that some such accommodation with the Soviet union and its satellites is necessary. In the present circumstances, I believe it is our duty to make every effort to reach such a settlement.

After listening to the minister's remarks this afternoon in this connection, we believe there is a certain shift in emphasis since he made that speech last December 5. We believe that the conditions at the present time do present once more a favourable opportunity for negotiations. Negotiations have been stalled since the adoption by the United Nations of the United States resolution declaring China the aggressor. The C.C.F. believe that conditions have changed considerably since that time as the result of new factors that may favourably influence the political climate in which negotiations can be undertaken. In our opinion these two new and important factors are: First, that

as the result of recent military events the United Nations would now be negotiating from a position of strength entirely different from the position that prevailed when the last negotiations were attempted. I want to quote in this connection from the statement by Mr. Chou En-lai, minister for foreign affairs of the Peiping government, December 14, 1950. This is what he said on that occasion:

This being the case, why does the United States delegate, Mr. Austin, now favour an immediate cease-fire in Korea, and why does President Truman also express willingness to conduct negotiations to settle the hostilities in Korea? It is not difficult to understand that, when the United States invading troops were landing at Inchon, crossing the 38th parallel or pressing toward the Yalu river, they did not favour an immediate cease-fire and were not willing to conduct negotiations. It is only

External Affairs

when the United States invading troops have sustained defeat, that they favour an immediate ceasefire and the conducting of negotiations after the cease-fire. Very obviously, they opposed peace yesterday, so that the United States might continue to extend her aggression; and they favour a ceasefire today, so that the United States may gain a breathing space and prepare to attack again, or at least hold their present aggressive position in preparation for further advance.

We claim the situation has entirely changed today; that the United Nations can negotiate from a position of strength, and that the locale of fighting and the situation of the troops involved are more favourable for negotiations at the present time than they were last December. In our opinion this improved situation offers possibilities for a change of attitude on the part of the Peiping government. Further, we believe the second favourable factor is the removal of General MacArthur by President Truman. Without entering into this controversy, we in the C.C.F. are of the opinion that his removal means the removal of a dominant and provocative personality who is without doubt viewed by the Chinese people with intense bitterness and resentment. Governments, like individuals, are affected and influenced by personalities. History is replete with illustrations of how the removal of a statesman, an ambassador, or a general, has improved the relationship between nations, of how the removal of one personality from the stage of public affairs had made the writing of a treaty or the conclusion of negotiations a fairly simple matter.

To illustrate the validity of our argument, I need only refer to our own recent Canadian experiences. We all know that, without a change in conditions or circumstances, the change of a premier of a province has made possible the resumption of successful negotiations with the federal government that had previously been discontinued in despair. I use that as an illustration of what the removal of a personality in a certain situation could mean. In addition, we believe that the last reply of the Peiping government held out some hope that negotiations could be resumed under changed circumstances, and I quote from the statement of Chou En-lai:

The central peoples government of the peoples republic of China solemnly declares that the Chinese people eagerly hope that the hostilities in Korea can be settled peacefully.

Therefore, we propose that the initiative in this matter should be taken by our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We recognize his ability to undertake delicate negotiations and to approach a problem of this complicated nature in the right spirit and in the right capacity. We further suggest that he might propose to the Indian representative that his government

External Affairs

contact the Peiping government, while he approaches the United States government on the following specific proposals: first, that a conference be called of the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R., China, France, India and Egypt, and second, that this conference consider as its first order of business the arrangement of a cease-fire and armistice, with a demilitarized zone ten miles on either side of the 38th parallel. On the 15th of December, 1950, the group on the cease-fire committee recommended a demilitarized area across Korea of approximately twenty miles in depth, with the southern limit following generally the line of the 38th parallel. We suggest ten miles each side of the 38th parallel, because we firmly believe we should use every opportunity we can to demonstrate our desire to commence the negotiations on a basis acceptable to the people of the governments concerned. We further suggest that this zone should be supervised by a commission composed of representatives of nations not engaged in military operations in Korea. Third, we propose that negotiations should be commenced with a view to the progressive withdrawal of non-Korean forces from both sides, as the circumstances permit, and that this withdrawal be supervised by the commission I have mentioned, appointed to supervise the demilitarized zone. Fourth, we further propose that this conference should then give consideration to the establishment of a unified democratic government for all Korea, and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Korean economy. Fifth, finally, consideration must then be given to other outstanding far eastern issues, including the admission of the Peiping government to the United Nations. In that respect I want to quote Mr. Kenneth Younger, secretary of state in the British government, as reported in the Montreal Standard of May 5:

Northampton, England, May 5 (Reuters). -Kenneth Younger, Britain's minister of state, said today Britain still hopes for an eventual peaceful settlement with communist China. "We believe . . . that the new China is entitled to take her place in the world," he told his constituents in an address.

We believe if the proposals we have outlined here can be attained in the order mentioned-there is no question of appeasement-then you will have attained a ceasefire, and if successful an armistice; you will have conducted satisfactory negotiations and you will have reached a stage where the Chinese government will have given some demonstration of its desire for a peaceful settlement of this most difficult question.

We believe that this conference should consider the Japanese peace treaty and also the question of Formosa, as mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

[Mr. Herridge.l

I do not wish to take the time of the house at great length. I have outlined briefly the proposals which are the consensus of this group with respect to this particular problem at this time. As representatives of the Canadian people we believe it is our responsibility and duty to leave no stone unturned in our search for an honourable and lasting settlement of this very unusual problem. Approaching this question with a genuine desire for a peaceful solution, we must recognize the fact that mutual understanding is to some extent handicapped by several factors that do not enter into negotiations between nations of the western world. We must recognize the fact that the Chinese harbour some traditional resentment as the result of a century or more of exploitation by the nations of the western world. In addition we must appreciate the difficulties caused by language and our different ways of thinking-difficulties that can prevent an identical and mutual understanding of even a single written paragraph.

In connection with the understanding of the oriental mind, and the different thinking processes of the oriental as compared with the occidental, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of recent date. The editorial, which is headed "What Makes Orientals Act The Way They Do," is as follows:

Arthur W. Hummel, Director of Orientalia, Library of Congress, addressed the annual gathering last week of the American Philosophical Society, offspring of Ben Franklin's "Junta" that met in Philadelphia during the eighteenth century to discuss the promotion of useful knowledge. He singled out certain aspects of Chinese culture regarded as characteristic and pertaining to the survival of the traditional Chinese world view, now menaced by an overpowering alien philosophy.

If we are to maintain durable peace and if the people of Asia are to be helped by the Point Four program, it seems time for the western world to learn a bit about the traditions of the Orient and understand the Oriental viewpoint. Absorbed as we are in intellectual and moral values derived from Greece, Rome, Palestine, and Egypt, we forget that half the people of the world have mental and moral treasures equally as old as ours that came to them through other channels.

As Mr. Hummel pointed out, while the philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are not wholly unrelated to ours, they stress aspects of thought and conduct that we have not explored. In a rapidly shrinking world it is highly important for us to understand them, even though we are by no means obliged to accept them.

The unwavering Oriental insistence, for example, that the means are as important as the ends, that tact and good taste are necessary ingredients in every act, are matters of considerable moment in world affairs.

Today surely it is plain that for a well-rounded education some thought should be given to Oriental history, traditions, and moral values in western institutions of higher learning.

On a sphere such as our planet there can be no favoured spot or favoured people if harmony is to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, there must be great allowance made for the difference in the thinking processes of the oriental and occidental minds. On our part we must not allow any personal pique or prejudice to influence our willingness to negotiate. We must not only view the events of yesterday or of recent years, but must understand the background provided by a century of western exploitation. Any student of history knows that the western nations have dripped some large and dark blots on the pages of history in their dealing with Asian people. Without a doubt, in China particularly the Boxer settlement, extraterritorial concessions, the customs imposts and the history of the opium trade make it necessary, if we are to approach this question with understanding, to do so with a total perspective of all the factors involved. The stakes are too high for anyone to indulge in acrimony or bitterness.

Therefore the C.C.F. urges the government to give consideration to the proposals I have just outlined. We believe sincerely that if these proposals are accepted they will further indicate the high purpose of Canadian policy as already demonstrated by the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at the United Nations, and in his relations with other countries. We sincerely believe that the present circumstances do provide an opportunity for all concerned to conclude this matter to the advantage of all mankind. In that respect we differ from the minister's statement of this afternoon. Should we fail, the record will bear witness to our good intentions, and our desire for the building of peace between the Chinese and Canadian people on the basis of justice, equity and mutual respect.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):

Mr. Speaker, as a member from one of the west coast constituencies of Canada I should like to make a few remarks in the debate, more particularly because of the statements made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I did not agree with several of those statements, and I think they should be discussed thoroughly in the house and in the committee on external affairs in the hope that it will be possible for Canada to arrive at a policy which will be more in line with the best interests of the country.

Before going on to place my thoughts before the house, may I say simply to my very good friend, who has just delivered an eloquent speech, that I believe sincerely if the policy he has advocated were carried

External Affairs

out it would not have the effect he and I and all members of the house hope for, which is world peace, but would probably have just the opposite effect, and be the cause of a third world war.

Today the great problem facing all the free nations is the threat of communism. That threat of course is world-wide, including threats right here in our own homeland of Canada. The threat must be met on all fronts. We cannot let Asia go and concentrate on Europe. And of course the reverse is true, that we cannot let Europe go and concentrate on Asia. I believe it is a great mistake when people line up behind a policy either of "Europe First" or of "Asia First."

I can understand why European countries would play down the Pacific, and why Asian and Australian countries would play down the Atlantic. But for our nation of Canada both of these areas are of vital importance. After all, we are a North American country facing on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. Furthermore we lie between the United States and Russia and certainly in the event of a third world war Canada would be under attack. So I suggest we must look on this problem as a global rather than an Atlantic problem or a Pacific problem.

For nearly a year the greatest threat has been in Korea. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) expressed that clearly in a statement he made to the federal-provincial conference on December 4, 1950, when he used these words:

At the moment, the focus of our hopes and fears is Korea. We must strive to find a solution to the grave and menacing problem that has arisen there.

That is still the situation. Korea is still the centre we must watch. Here in this house we should consider what Canada's attitude should be on Korea. I would point out to hon. members that what is going on in Korea is a United Nations show. North Korea attacked South Korea and all in due order the United Nations branded North Korea as an aggressor and for the first time took collective action against aggression. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they decided not only to take action against aggression but to unify Korea.

As we all know, our forces were successful at first. The war against North Korea was practically won by the United Nations forces. Then communist China joined in the aggression and in spite of the fact that such action had been taken the members of the United Nations went to every possible length to bring about conciliation. I do not believe that there was one stone left unturned in an attempt to work out a peace settlement. Many

External Affairs

of us wondered whether the United Nations were not going too far in the efforts that were being made to bring about such a settlement. When one remembers that, it is hard to understand that a party in Canada would get up here and demand that conciliation steps should be taken under the present circumstances.

The communist Chinese have never shown any sign of regret or any sign that they felt they were in the wrong. In due course they were branded by the United Nations as aggressors, just as North Korea had been some months earlier. Yet they continued, and have continued right up to tonight, their barefaced aggression. They have continued to try to drive the United Nations forces into the sea. That is their objective. They have announced it time and again and their actions in the last week or two have proved up to the hilt that that is what they aim to do. They are not sacrificing thousands and thousands of men for nothing; they aim to drive the United Nations forces into the sea.

That should make every member of the United Nations not with the communists pause and consider what attitude should be adopted. I. suggest to the minister that the aim of all members of the United Nations who are with us, certainly the aim of Canada, should be to gain victory in Korea just as quickly as possible. The whole future of the United Nations is at stake. It must be shown that that organization is able to stop aggression in Korea. If the United Nations forces are defeated in Korea, the United Nations is dead as an effective world organization. Our hopes of world peace will be gone. I believe that the situation would not be very much better if the United Nations now offered to make a settlement with the communist Chinese before they have been beaten. That too might very well mean the end of the United Nations.

Canada should consider and advocate steps to win this United Nations war. This is a United Nations war that we are fighting and it must be won. I cannot understand what would be wrong with placing a strategic embargo against communist China. The minister said this afternoon that Canada and all other nations were against any such action.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I used the expression "naval blockade", which is quite different from a strategic embargo. We already have an embargo on armaments and such things to communist China.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

We have not the kind of embargo the United States is asking for. I IMr. Green.]

have here a press dispatch from Lake Success dated May 4 as follows:

United States urges "strategic embargo" against red China.

The United States pressed today for a United Nations "strategic embargo" against communist China in the face of British commonwealth objections to the timing of such a move.

In outlining the arms embargo plan to reporters last night, American delegate Ernest A. Gross said:

"I don't think that any nation backing the UN action in Korea could object to a program ensuring that no soldier in Korea should be the target of a bullet manufactured in the free world."

In today's evening papers we find an article headed, "Britain limits shipments to red China." The British are now taking steps to stop this trade with China. I suggest that Canada should be endorsing this request of the United States right up to the hilt.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

May 4, 1951