Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):
Mr. Speaker, it may be a task for a new member of the house to address this gathering on the question of external affairs. Much has been said about the eastern situation during this debate. The complaint has been made that we do not receive sufficient information on foreign affairs so that we may intelligently debate the issue. At first sight we may be in
agreement with that statement. I take the view that today foreign affairs are so important that we should consider having a united foreign policy supported by all members of the house so that there will be no contention among us as to what our policy should be either in the east or in the west in the interests of the maintenance of peace.
As a member of the committee on external affairs, I am in agreement with the chairman, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), when he intimated on Friday night that he could not be responsible for receiving confidential information from the department without proper safeguards having been made. As I understand it, one of my duties in the house is to safeguard the safety of the nation. Much as I might desire more information on external affairs, I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Cochrane, and I am not prepared to receive such information if by any chance it might get into enemy hands and thus endanger the state. In view of what has happened in the past in Canada so far as espionage is concerned, and in view of recent world events, I take the view that we cannot be too careful about what information is given in this respect. We have had the spectacle of the Alger Hiss trial in the United States. In recent weeks we have had the spectacle of Dr. Fuchs in London. Lo and behold, we now have a secretary for war in England who a few years ago had communist leanings. Where are we going? Whither are we tending?
The communist peril is a serious question for Canada and the whole world, and we will do no good unless we recognize it for what it is. I should like to quote an article from the New York Times of February 12, 1950, which may open the eyes of some members of the house as to where we stand on the question of eastern policy, and where the great nation to the south of us stands. It may open their eyes to the peril in which we both stand from communist activities in the world. The article is written by Arthur Krock, political correspondent of the New York Times in Washington, who is commonly known as the dean of the correspondents there and as the pundit. He writes as follows:
The president, and1 secretary of state Acheson, reviewing the bases of American foreign policy in the light of recent and dynamic events, said in substance this week: The United States cannot do
business with Soviet Russia (just as it could not do business with Hitler) except where a set of facts creates entrenched realities that force the Kremlin to adjust its aggressive policies downward. This happened and was proved in Berlin, Greece, Turkey and Iran; and all our efforts are to be directed toward increasing the number of such areas in the world.
To which important democrats as well as republicans in congress, some of whose demands for
affirmative policy produced the executive statements, responded about as follows: You reject the concrete proposal by Senator Brien McMahon that a new approach be made to the problem, offering $50 billion in gifts and loans over ten years to nations everywhere, including Russia, in exchange for effective suppression of atomic weapons. You say experience has demonstrated the futility of attaining such an agreement with Russia, or of Russian adherence to any agreements that could be made.
By the same reasoning you reject the concrete proposal by Senator Millard E. Tyddngs that a general disarmament conference be attempted.
On the ground that the moral commitment of this government makes it dishonourable as well as self-defeating to diminish or abolish the sovereignty of the Chinese nationalist regime on Formosa, you decline at least one hopeful opportunity to confine the international communists to the territory which they have now acquired in Asia.
Now I should like to mention the situation in the state department in Washington, as it is set out in this same newspaper:
In other executive departments and at the capitol, however, nerves show signs of high tension. This correspondent does not attribute that to panic in any degree or to lack of any of the items in Mr. Acheson's formula. Many of the president's subexecutives are frankly worried over security, not only with respect to atomic secrets but with reference to general fifth-column activities in the government itself.
One such official told this correspondent he felt certain there was such a column at work in the department where his jurisdiction is just short of the top, but that he was still unable to bring persuasion for forceful purging. Another said he would be uneasy over the successful execution of any foreign policy, however sound and strong, until "five or six individuals" are removed from a very important government office indeed.
Then I should like to quote a dispatch from the New York Times correspondent in Paris:
The United States' attitude is that there is no use beginning once again an exchange of words when it is clear that the Soviet union has no intention of implementing them by actions. Premier Stalin himself once said:
"Institutions and systems are not changed by words-they are changed by natural causes."
The "natural causes" which appear to be predominant in the minds of the Soviet politburo belie the "words" of amity. The U.S.S.R. is pressing a cold war against the United States and its friends. Until such deliberate hostility ceases, mere "words" can be of no avail.
We have heard a great deal said in this chamber about peace, from a humanitarian standpoint; and we all agree with what has been said and the way it was said. We all desire peace; we desire it now more than ever. But we must be realistic about this peace, and I contend that Canada must speak with a united voice. If she speaks with a divided voice advantage will be taken of that fact. If we are not united, no matter what policy we adopt it will not contribute to the peace of the world.
Much has been said of an eastern policy for Canada. I served in the east for two
years, and I know what rioting there is like. I know what a wrong policy adopted by the western nations can mean to the east. The late President Wilson adopted a policy of self determination for all people. It was a high-sounding policy; and how was it received in the east? That news went through the bazaars like wildfire, and they interpreted it to mean that they could do as they liked, that they could disregard law and order. That was the way they acted, and troops had to be called in.
We do not understand the eastern mind. We in the west have developed the material or practical side of life, while the people of the east have developed the abstract or mystical side. If we think we can adopt a policy here, with our western ideas, without fully understanding the eastern mind, we shall fail and fail badly. Let me give just one simple illustration. A carpenter in Canada saws from the top down. A. carpenter in the east saws from the bottom up. In other words they view life from the opposite standpoint, and we must understand their point of view; we must understand their civilization, their religion, their social problems, if any policy we adopt is to be successful.
I was in India when the London Times came out with a policy to which, on the face of it, every man in the western world could subscribe; but if that policy had been adopted in India it would have led to untold trouble, and we who lived there knew it. I was through the riots in India. I was through Delhi, Amritsar and Lahore shortly after those riots took place, and I know how bad they were. I know how serious the eastern problem is, and I believe that any policy Canada adopts must be undertaken with a thorough knowledge of the eastern mind. One reason the Russian policy has been so successful in the east is that the Russians are half oriental themselves, and understand the eastern mind.
We have a situation in China which is not clear. We have a communist government, but we have the two islands of Hainan and Formosa held by the nationalist forces. The problem before us today is what to do about those islands. If we support the nationalist forces in China we will be accused of meddling in the internal affairs of that country, because Formosa was ceded to the Chinese republic after the war. If we decide to support the nationalist forces there it will mean that we will have to supply them with munitions and money to carry on the struggle. The best military advice in the world today is that Formosa cannot be held by the nationalists once the Chinese communists re-arm and reorganize their air force with Russian help.
External Affairs If that situation arises, Formosa cannot be held.
What do we do then? Do we send men and munitions to hold it? And if we decide on such a policy will the people of Canada and the United States back us up? If we do not support the nationalists and Formosa becomes communist territory, it will provide a springboard for communist propaganda and infiltration in the Philippines and the eastern islands. I do not know the answer, but there is the problem. I agree with the leader of the opposition when he asks for caution, and for time to be taken in order that consideration may be given all these matters.
We have more or less the same problem in Indo-China. We are fighting a guerrilla war against communism in the Federated Malay States. We have Siam not knowing which side of the fence to stay on. She has 30,000 communist troops within her borders, and she is afraid that if she disarms and interns them she will become unfriendly with the communist regime in China. Like so many of the weak states in the east, she is sitting on the fence waiting to see which way the wind will blow. We have chaos in Burma, and a situation in India which requires careful consideration.
How many men in this house know how India is composed? When we speak of Canada we think of it as one nation; but when we speak of India we must think of it as a conglomeration of peoples. In India and Pakistan over three hundred dialects are spoken. There is more difference between a Mahratta and a Sikh than between a Frenchman and a German. There is a greater difference between a Bengali, a Rajput, a Tamil and a Punjabi. How is Mr. Nehru going to bring all these people together?
He has our sympathy. He spoke here, and he, received a grand welcome. Mr. Nehru has a problem which is colossal in the extreme, and just as complex. The United Nations decided they would send a mission to settle the Kashmiri dispute. They are trying to settle it according to western ideas. They said, "We shall take a plebiscite, and let the people decide for themselves." This mission has been there for many months, but no plebiscite has taken place as yet. Kashmiri is a thorn in the flesh of India. If this question is not settled promptly, it may well lead to civil war between Pakistan and Hindustan. You have a situation there which is fraught with great peril. If we can help Mr. Nehru and the Indians to solve this problem, by all means let us do it.
India is the bastion of democracy, such as it is, against the communist influence filtering down from Afghanistan through the Khyber
pass. We must support Mr. Nehru in any move he makes to keep the communist influence out of that part of Asia, because if it gets down there it will spread further.
Much has been said here about peace in the world. I have dreams about the peace of the world. Last fall the Prime Minister made a statement that war was not imminent. His statement was received with a great deal of relief by all the members of this house. The Prime Minister cannot guarantee future peace, nor can anyone else. As the article in the New York Times states, that has been demonstrated time and time again. The holding of conference after conference and getting nowhere is not the way to peace. What are Russia's intentions in the world? Hitler wrote a book called "Mein Kampf", in which he set out the plans he intended to carry out. When people read that book, no one would believe he would be foolish enough to tell us what he was going to do, and then do it. But he tried to do it. Lenin has written that communism and the Christian ideology cannot exist side by side on this earth; one must go. We would do well to believe that, whatever policy Russia has, and however she may trim her sails to suit this mood and that mood, the basic principle of communism is that Christianity must be destroyed or communism will be destroyed. We have to face that fact. To sign pacts with people for whom the ten commandments and the sermon on the mount have no meaning is useless. They can but be binding on us, and they will not be binding on them.
If we call a conference now at the higher level, and trust them, we shall be sadly left. The only language they understand is the language of force. This nation, and all the other democratic nations, must be strong; strong to resist aggression and show these people in the Kremlin that if they do start a war they may destroy, but they will be destroyed. One of the reasons why gas warfare was not begun by the Germans during the last war was that they were afraid of the retaliation the allies would make. We have to get it into the minds of the people in the Kremlin that if they do start a war we shall retaliate; that is the only language they understand. If we cannot penetrate their minds, we must penetrate the minds of the Russian people, and of the people who are under communist domination. We must impress upon them that the policy they are adopting is a policy of destruction, and that, while they may destroy, they will be destroyed. Nobody wants to commit suicide. That is the language they understand, and that is the language which we must put across to them if peace is to be maintained in this world.
We in. Canada together with the other democratic nations of the world, must be strong or we shall have a war. That is the road we are travelling, so let us admit it, whether we like it or not. I do not want a war. I have seen enough of it. Any man who has seen anything such as I have seen does not want war. But I do not want my wife ravaged or my children taken to God knows where, if that is the price of communism. I want freedom in this world. I fought for it years ago, and 1 am prepared, old as I am, to fight for it now. I want peace in the world, but I also want freedom. If we think we can have peace without freedom, we are making a grave mistake. During the interval between sessions, I have travelled this country from the east coast to the west coast. I have met many Canadian people, and I have talked with many of them. I say to you that this is a grand land; it is a good land. I could describe it as a land of hope and glory; hope, because of the faith that the people of Canada have in the future of their country; glory, because of the achievements of the people in the past. Thank God, it is still a land of the free. Let us keep it that way.
Topic: BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic: EXTERNAL AFFAIRS