I gave the name-Mrs. Sheila Woodsworth, of Ottawa. I do not know her. As I said before, it is most disturbing that a few months after the war, people feel impelled to write such letters as this to members of ' parliament, asking them to do something so that this atomic bomb shall not be used among peoples. The Washington declaration does not reassure me any more than it reassures that person; I do not think it reassures any member of this house. The fact is that the declaration leaves in the hands of those who have it the power to use the atomic bomb at their discretion, and leaves the door open to an atomic armament race. It may sound very harsh, but it is a fact that it has left in the hands of the United States, Great Britain and Canada not only a dangerous weapon of war, but a dangerous weapon of diplomacy.
War simply does not come by itself; someone once said that war is a continuation of politics in a different way. Politics goes on before war, and politics to-day is becoming an atomic diplomacy. We see it going on right now in Washington, more perhaps than anywhere else. And recently we had the example when Ambassador Hurley practically demanded that the United States should use the advantage of the atomic bomb in her diplomatic dealings. Such voices are heard more and more in the United States. Pressure is being exerted on Washington for the United States government to use the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon [DOT] to club everybody.
I follow closely the United States press. I spoke in Boston a week ago Sunday, and there you get the feeling that a new diplomacy is
being advocated in the United States. There is the intervention in China, and Washington practically says: "We will keep those marines there until the situation fits into our pattern." One hon. member spoke about Anglo-American democracy. I would say that this is far from a democratic action. We read daily about the wiping out of Indonesian villages, of people poorly armed fighting for their freedom against British forces, and again we hear about Anglo-American democracy. This is not the type of pattern we had hoped for in the post-war period. It is not the type of pattern that will produce lasting security.
The Prime Minister praised the great work of President Roosevelt, and we all had the greatest respect for the late president, but I would remind hon. members of something that he said in March 1945. He knew that collaboration cannot be Anglo-American but must be collaboration among those powers that made victory possible, the powers that can preserve the peace together. Speaking about the trouble at the time, he said:
It is fruitless to try to place the blame for the situation on one particular nation or another. It is the kind of development which is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems which may arise to endanger the peace of the world.
The other day President Truman seemingly forgot these words when he said: "No more conferences of the big three; we don't have to get together any more,"
There is no solution but in the continued unity of the big three. Only a few weeks ago when Cordell Hull, that great old statesman, accepted the Nobel prize, he said:
We must never forget that to achieve the great goal of lasting peace it is imperative that there be continued unity, friendly understanding, and common effort among the people and statesmen of -the major united nations who bore the principal burden in the war against the axis.
Unity and understanding among those who bore the burden in the war! But this declaration of Washington has been made by powers outside one great power that bore one of the greatest burdens, and this can only tend to create suspicion and bring about a situation that is not the best at the present time. Some people are always suggesting that the Russians are close-mouthed, that they do not say what they want to say, that they do not say what they mean, that they just keep everything t.o themselves, and so on. Hon. members who are interested have the same opportunities as I have for acquiring information. They can resort to the New York Times, as I do. If they will look at that newspaper in its issue of Wednesday, November 7, 1945, they will
Atomic Energy Declaration
find reported therein a speech made by foreign commissar Molotov in which he referred! to atomic 'diplomacy. What he says reflects the feeling of the Soviet people over the fact that they are being kept out, and are being given reason for suspicion. He said:
A word must be said about the discovery of atomic energy and about the atomic bomb, the colossal destructive force of which was displayed
in the war against Japan. Atomic energy nas not yet been tried, however, for averting aggression or safeguarding peace, but it is not possible at the present time for a technical secret of any great size to remain the exclusive possession of some one country or some narrow circle of countries. This being so, the discovery of atomic energy should not encourage either a propensity to exploit the discovery and the play of forces in international policy, or an attitude of complacency as regards the future of peace-loving nations.
Plainly and simply, Mr. Molotov says that there are some nations who believe that they have an advantage because they have the bomb, but that it cannot, be kept a secret. It shows that there is a good deal of suspicion in his mind. He ends his speech by saying, "We will' have atomic energy and many other things." I would say that as a result of the great contribution which the Russians made to victory, it should have been possible for the three nations to get together, making the atomic bomb the possession of all, because we would then know that it would not be used by any one nation.
, It has been disclosed that the Germans had some very dangerous type of poison gas but they did not use it because they knew that everyone had it. From the point of view of equilibrium in diplomatic and political relations, it would have been better if the atomic bomb had been placed in the hands of all rather than in the hands of the Anglo-American natibns. It is true there is a conference of foreign ministers where the matter is being discussed, but this is taking place after the Washington understanding and agreement. It could have taken place before, and it should have occurred before.
One United States newspaper man, Leland Stowe, referring to the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon, gives the following picture, writing in the Montreal Standard on November 24, 1945. He is a newspaperman of great repute who has travelled throughout the world and has seen the various countries at war. He knows of their sufferings. He says:
If the Soviets had the bomb and had followed Washington's precise course since August 6, how would the average American feel? I think the newspapers would be full of explosive condemnation of the "imperialistic power-seeking" Russians-and an awful lot of us would be olenty scared.
We would say: If the Russians don't intend to use the bomb, actually or for blackmail purposes, why didn't they invite President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee to a conference right away?
We would say: Why is Moscow treating the Americans and British as if they were second-class allies? Military men would be derelict m their duty if they didnT say: We've got to build a bomb of our own in the shortest possible time. Don't trust the Russians. The very fact that they only talk about sharing, after they ve had time to make many more bombs themselves shows they can't be trusted.
If I were a Russian I think I should feel exactly like that. But I am not worried about being a Russian. As one member of this house and as a Canadian interested in the peace of Canada and the world, I am afraid that the damage which has been done already will be hard to heal in the coming months, though I hope it may be healed. Scientists who have worked on the bomb have spoken publicly for the first time, and this is all to the good. Scientists who know exactly what is involved in this atomic energy, much better than at least many of us in the house can know, have advised that we hand over the secret to an international committee, not at some future date but right away. A number of scientists were engaged in this work. One very prominent man, Doctor J. R. Oppenheimer, who directed atomic bomb research at Los Alamos, New Mexico, said:
It has momentarily strengthened us-
Meaning the United States.
-but not in the long run. Some people apparently have been reluctant to draw this to the attention of the world.
Then he recommends that it be placed in the hands of an international organization. Doctor Curtis, who was one of the leading scientists working on atomic energy at Oak Ricfge, Tennessee, - said that atomic energy should be turned over to an international organization to control all aspects of atomic power. There are many more. Only the other day Professor Sziland, appearing before the senate committee on atomic energy, said it would appear that we were producing bombs against the soviet union. One of the senators interjected, "No, no; we are friends." Professor Szilard replied, "Well, I assume we are producing them against the Soviet Union," and he was one of those who first thought of the \ possibility of the bomb. He went on to say: "Well, if we are, we are going to be at a disadvantage." He pointed out that it would take the United States twenty years to decentralize her industries, which would have to 'be done in the event of atomic war, but he said it would take Russia only
Atomu Energy Declaration
two years, and therefore the advantage of having the bomb now would be completely lost. One of the most ridiculous arguments against passing on the "know-how" to other countries was presented by Major General Leslie G. Groves, who was in charge of the whole project of producing the atomic bomb. He gave some reasons why it should not be placed in the hands of an international organization; and do you know what he said: He said it would erase national boundaries, end the sanctity of the home and destroy private commercial enterprise. That was the reason for his opposition to an international organization; that it would destroy the sanctity of the home and destroy private free enterprise. If these are the reasons then I would Say that those who oppose handing this over to an international organization are relying on pretty weak arguments. After all, the atomic bomb would definitely destroy the sanctity of the home; everyone will agree with that.
I was not going to speak on this at all, but before I conclude I must say a few words about one group in this house who have been carrying on a. most vicious agitation against a country which has been a loyal ally and which has been carrying out all the decisions reached at various conferences. People say you cannot trust the Soviet Union, that they are going to bolshevize the world. Well, right next door to Russia is Finland. We were told that was a country Russia was going to swallow. They had elections in that country. The communists did not come into power. A .majority of those elected were neither communists nor socialists. They said Russia would swallow Hungary. Well, Hungary has not been swallowed. They had elections there and the small holders' p'hrty came out with the largest group. Then people said, "Aha! now there has been a free election, because the communists did not come out in the majority." In France, of course, the communists came through the election as the largest party and the Red Army is not there. Again, something was said about Austria, but in Austria the Russians actually placed their cards on the table. They recognized the free government at the head of which was Renner, a socialist. They had elections there, and what happened? We all know the results. Then the Soviet Union said they would withdraw from Manchuria, and they are allowing Chinese troops to go into that country. I should like to see the other countries living up to their promises and responsibilities as the Soviet people have been living up to theirs. Let the other countries prove their good faith. Let them prove it in Indonesia,
IMr. Bose.] - [
in French Indo-China, in China and everywhere else. They have not done so. The Social Credit group in this house, and particularly the leader of that group, assisted very ably by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, have been carrying on a vicious agitation here.
Topic: ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic: APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945