Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎148v] (296/442)

1953
1954
Supply (Committee). HOUSE OF COMMONS Foreign Office.
[Mr. Baird.]
“Daily News,” had one statement in a
leading article which I thought was most
disturbing. It stated :—
We have had to surrender predominance in the
Pacific to Japan, in the Atlantic to the United States :
we are now faced with the surrender of predominance
in the Mediterranean to a third Power.”
Who to? [An Hon. Member: “France.’’]
An hon. Gentleman says “France.” If he
has taken the trouble to study the pro
gramme of naval construction for France,
Austria, and Italy, he will see that Austria
and Italy in a very short time, next year
I think it is, will have a force very much
superior to France in the Mediterranean;
so that it is not right to say we are sur
rendering to France our naval predomi
nance in the Mediterranean. The article
proceeds, and this is where the sting is:—
“ On the other hand, if the British standard of naval
superiority is strictly adjusted to the needs of the
defence of these Islands no power can or will regard it
as a menace, any more than it regards military measures
adjusted to the needs of defence as a menace.”
Surely that is not the way we can look
upon our foreign affairs ? Surely our
foreign affairs are directed to the main
tenance and security of the Empire as a
whole, and not to the maintenance and
security of these islands alone 1 I do trust,
as in most cases, so on this occasion, that
the views of the right hon. Gentleman
which count are quite opposed to the views
of the “Daily News,” which, I am glad to
think, do not count. There is then the
“Daily Chronicle,” which has an equally
disturbing paragraph to-day. It asks,
why we should maintain our Fleet in the
Mediterranean, and continues:—
“ It is to be'hoped, therefore, that the Government will
not let itself be carried away by the arguments of the
jingoes.”
I suppose that is people like myself.
We have quite enough to do without building ships
to meet a phantom danger in the Mediterranean.”
Why call it a phantom danger? Why has
it become a phantom danger ? If we have
found it necessary for a period of 120
years to maintain a strong Fleet in the
Mediterranean, why is it suddenly no
longer necessary to do so ? The hon.
Member for Stirling (My. Ponsonby), who
I am sorry is not in his place, as I would
like to have asked him a question, spoke
of allusions to our having “ the ships, and
the men, and the money, too.” It is very
lucky we have got them. I should like to
ask him whether he would be happier
in his mind if he were convinced that
we had not. If we have got the ships,
and the men, and the money, too—and
we are lucky if we have got them—then I
do not think that the right hon. Gentleman
can resent our inquiring why it has been
found necessary to withdraw a portion of
those ships from a part of the world where
hitherto we have been always led to be
lieve that those ships were necessary.
Under a previous Government it is true we
withdrew battleships from the Pacific. We
did so because we arrived at an under
standing with Japan which secured us for
a definite period against the hostility of
the only Power from which we had any
thing to fear in that region. But it is per
fectly right to notice that those members
of the Empire chiefly concerned, namely,
the inhabitants of Australia and New Zea
land, are not satisfied with such protection
as is afforded by our international agree
ment, and that they are taking steps to
develop their own resources. They have
shown the way, which I trust will be fol
lowed in due course by this country, in
insisting that every citizen shall qualify
himself to discharge the elementary obliga
tions of citizenship, namely, to qualify to
defend his hearth and home, if it happens
to be attacked. That shows, at any rate,
that Australia and New Zealand are alive
to the dangers of the withdrawal of our
naval forces from the Pacific.
Mr. KING: Is it in order to discuss at
considerable length upon this Vote the de
fence of the Empire ?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stuart-
Wortley): I understood the hon. Member
to show its connection with the Vote.
Mr. BAIRD: I will endeavour to keep
the connection so clear that the hon. Mem
ber will not fail to see it. I was under the
impression that if there is one thing in
the world for which the Foreign Office
exists it is to maintain and safeguard the
interests of the Empire as a whole. Dur
ing the short time I was in the Service I
was always told to act on those lines. I
do not understand into what watertight
compartments the hon. Member proposes
to separate the work on foreign affairs.
I am endeavouring to point out the impos
sibility of arguing that the withdrawal of
ships from the Pacific is on all fours with
the withdrawal of ships from the Mediter
ranean. Has this withdrawal taken place
after consultation with and with the con
sent of His Majesty’s representatives at
the Courts of Mediterranean Powers ?
Does it meet with the approval of the mili
tary and naval commanders-in-chief at
Malta and in the Mediterranean ? What
have been the views expressed previously