Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned on Tuesday evening I was reviewing some remarks that had been made in this debate on external affairs by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and was drawing the attention of the house especially to the latter part of the hon. member's remarks to be found on page 690 of Hansard. I now wish to refer to that portion of his speech in which the hon. member said that he knew it was a bit risky to discuss Far Eastern questions and then went on to make reference to Owen Lattimore in the United States. During the course of that debate I stated that I had heard of Owen Lattimore long before I had heard of Senator McCarthy, and the impression I had of Owen Lattimore was that he was a fellow traveller and that his writings leaned to the left.

External Affairs

Since Tuesday evening I have found an article in the China Monthly, published in New York in October, 1948, in which there is a review of two books published by two men who had been sent to China by the United States government during the years following the conclusion of the war with Japan. These two books are "The Stilwell Papers", which contains the memoirs of General Stilwell as edited by Theodore White, and "The United States and China", by John King Fairbank. This article by Alfred Kohl-berg is illustrated, and the first picture I see is a picture of Owen Lattimore sitting down with Chiang Kai-shek in Chungking. The author of this article is also the publisher of a magazine called Plain Talk and chairman of the American China Policy Association, I quote from this article as follows:

Early in 1943, Lattimore wrote of the generalissimo . we have in Asia a world statesman, a real genius in Chiang Kai-shek. What may be called the functional test of the historical importance of Chiang Kai-shek is the fact that throughout an already long political career, he has grown steadily greater and greater." The following year, after orders from Moscow to switch, Lattimore switched his opinions to suit.

That is by Kohlberg.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

This is the article by Kohlberg. Later in the article Lattimore is named as being associated with Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, Edgar Snow and John Carter Vincent who had planned to slowly choke to death and destroy the government of the republic of China and build up the Chinese communists for post-war success.

I feel that Chiang Kai-shek needs no defence in this house, or indeed in America. Chiang Kai-shek was the head of one of the many nations that we considered as being united nations during world war II. His military record and speeches are there for anyone to investigate. He was a loyal ally. I think it is a disgrace for us not only to have deserted him in his hour of need but to malign him at the present time.

I am aware that in a general review such as was being given toy the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) he may be excused for making minor mistakes, but I do not think justice and truth should permit the gross mistakes that are to be found in his speech as reported on page 690. He stated, and I drew this to the attention of the house on Tuesday, that five years ago-that is in 1947-Owen Lattimore had warned' the country that Chiang Kai-shek was out and that the Chinese people would have nothing further to do with him.

The hon. gentleman knows full well that there have been volumes written on United

States-Chinese negotiations and there is certainly a very strong case to be made out that China was deserted by the United States and that United States officials who visited China interfered with the war effort of Chiang Kai-shek and brought about a result which led to the Chinese communist government taking over that country.

Mr. Coldwell:

They provided him with arms.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

I know the hon. gentleman said that they supplied him with billions of dollars' worth, but I challenge him to prove his statement by any documentary evidence. I have here an article that appeared in February, 1948, in Fortune called "The Tyrannous Decade." This goes at great length into relations between the United States and China. If the hon. member will read that and the other voluminous documents available I think he will find that, in the fight against Japan, China was a valuable ally. China was a valuable ally from the time Japan turned on the United States in December, 1941, until the time Russia entered the war one week before the war with Japan concluded.

Then from V-J day 1945, until September 1948, there was not a dollar's worth of aid sent by the United States to China to help Chiang Kai-shek. Naturally we could expect that when China was fighting Japan and at the time when the United States was fighting Japan, the United States would see to it that China was assisted in a fight in which they were both engaged; but Chinese sympathizers with Chiang Kai-shek are not slow to point out that prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor the United States was sending war materials to Japan, especially in the form of scrap, which enabled that country to build up its munitions supply.

So was Canada.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

So was

Canada, the hon. member says. I do not think that is anything for us to be proud of. In this same magazine there is a picture showing General Marshall, who is supposed to have said the same thing as Owen Lattimore about the Chinese nationalist government being useless, and General Marshall is standing with General Chang-Chun and General Chou En-lai of the Chinese communists. The caption on the picture is "Shotgun Marriage." General Marshall was sent out to China to force General Chiang Kai-shek into making an agreement with the communists. It was that agreement that helped to weaken General Chiang Kai-shek's military forces. The fact that Chiang Kai-shek did not get military aid in time.helped

to defeat the nationalist armies, and left us with the terrible situation we have there today.

Someone has said that it is a strange thing to see Germany, Italy and Japan, the three nations we were fighting in world war II, now riding on the crest of the wave and all soon to be our allies, while Poland, the country for whom we went to war, and China, our ally in the same world war II, are smothered by the communists. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar I am sure has not forgotten that the Russians came into the war in the Pacific a week before it ended. They went into Manchuria, and would not allow the United States to enter.

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

By agreement with Chiang Kai-shek.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

No, but by

agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta the year before. This agreement was made in February, 1945, at Yalta, and it was agreed that Russia was to get back all she had lost in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904. It was the greatest mistake ever made by any statesman, and the greatest miscalculation; because the week after the Russians entered the war, Japan capitulated. At that time military equipment owned by the Japanese armies in Manchuria, all that great storehouse of munitions, came into the possession of the Russians and was passed over by the Russians to the Chinese communists. Before the Russians entered the war there was not a Chinese communist in Manchuria; yet that great territory, the richest part of China, was immediately entered by the Chinese communists. They were armed with the equipment taken from the Japanese, and with other equipment given by the Russians, whereas, as I have already pointed out, Chiang Kai-shek, between V-J day and 1948, received no assistance whatever from the United States.

Instead of assistance, the nationalists received a great deal of embarrassment from some of the officials who were sent, including General Marshall. I do not say that when General Marshall went there he did not have good intentions. I say he was misled. We are all aware of the great controversy that has raged in the United States over the state department. It was a surprise to many people when North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950 to find that the United States reversed its policy and went to the assistance of South Korea. They are still defending them against the attack of the North Koreans, trained by the Russians, and the Chinese communists who have been sent there by their Russian masters. The hon. member mentions billions of dollars being sent by

External Affairs

the United States to Chiang Kai-shek. There is an incident told about the state department printing billions of dollars of worthless Chinese money and sending that into China. I do not know if my hon. friend was referring to those worthless billions when he was talking about the billions of dollars, or whether he was referring to the money sent to China before V-J day when China was an ally of the United States.

It seems to me that the hon. member has reason to revise his opinion. I find it very easy to listen to the hon. member. He is a good speaker, and a plausible speaker. I am afraid that, with some people, he is a convincing speaker. I suggest, however, that there are a great many statements in this speech which he cannot justify. He says that, unfortunately, support of the corrupt regime now in Formosa drove the Chinese literally into the arms of the Soviet union-drove the supporters of the nationalist army into the arms of the communists! We cannot say the same thing about Poland, Roumania or Hungary, all those countries that are in the arms of the Soviets today. It was our mistake in policy. We worshipped at the shrine of Stalin to such a degree that we put these people in the arms of the Russians.

There is another gentleman who went to China, General Chennault, whose famous Flying Tigers fought for Chiang Kai-shek. In an article that is quoted in the Catholic Digest for April, 1952, at page 56, he says:

The great masses of the Chinese people never sought communism. Their leaders were beguiled by pledges of better living conditions at a time when it was hard to imagine that conditions could be worse. Mao Tse-tung promised a stable economy.

Chiang Kai-shek, as the hon. member knows, had driven the communists into one small section of China. He also knows that General Marshall, by calling a truce between the nationalist government and the communists, permitted the Chinese communists to be rearmed and helped by Russia. They became a tower of strength in the north, and then when Chiang Kai-shek did not receive the necessary military assistance, when his soldiers were falling away because they had no munitions, or not the right kind of munitions, the communists drove him to Formosa. How could anyone defend a great territory like China against an enemy who was so well supplied with equipment, and, I must say, well led?

There is another article I think I ought to mention in this magazine the China Monthly, at page 288, written by Colonel W. Bruce Pirnie, of the United States Air Force, and entitled "Who Hamstrings U.S. Military Aid to China?" That article was written in 1948,

External Affairs

as late as the month of October that year. It is stated that on April 3 the United States congress had appropriated $125 million for aid to China, and yet by early autumn nothing had been shipped. That does not look as if billions had been spent in a hurry.

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

In what year?

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

This was in 1948, and the article goes on to analyse 60,000 tons of war munitions that were sent to China, of which only 2.1 per cent were of any value. The rest of it was useless. It was not the kind of ammunition that they needed. This is the sort of thing that gave rise to a lot of people complaining that China was being betrayed within the state department of the United States. Many people have said the same thing since.

The hon. member also made reference to reactionary regimes like that of Syngman Rhee in South Korea. I wonder what sort of regime my hon. friend wants to have in Korea? He links Chiang Kai-shek with Syngman Rhee. I believe one must remember that these countries have not the tradition of representative and responsible government in the same way that we have. We have a long tradition going back almost a thousand years in this form of government. Neither the Chinese nor the Koreans have had that sort of government. I believe it is a credit to their intelligence that they have been willing to accept our form of government and try to get along with it. I think we must make allowances for the fact that it is a novel experiment; with time and patience they should be able to do something for their country.

The hon. member also said that probably Russia helped to arm the Chinese. I am sure he did not need to put in that word "probably". The probability is so great that I think he could speak with moral certitude on that point. The Chinese communist government had no one else to look to for any kind of financial or military assistance. It was from Russia that she received assistance, partly in the form of Japanese equipment and partly in the form of Russian equipment. He says that a large part of their armour came from our country, and had been delivered into their hands by the Chinese soldiers of Chiang Kai-shek. I do not think it is necessary to make any further reference to that.

Then he went on to say that China never will be controlled by an outside nation. The nationalists in China are in retreat. They are on Formosa. Probably in my hon. friend's opinion they do not count for much at the present time. But I would remind him that

the Netherlands government retreated, that the French government retreated and that Chiang Kai-shek retreated before from the Japanese. There is a possibility-it may be a miracle, but let us pray for this miracle to happen-that the Chinese nationalists, the true friends of the western nations, will be able to redeem the territory that has been lost to the communists. We must remember this tragic fact. China controlled by the communists is China controlled by Russia, by a foreign government. My hon. friend says that he inclines to the view that China will develop an independence of its own, something like that of Tito in Yugoslavia- I believe that is the fervent wish of my hon. friend-and that perhaps they may behave themselves as civilized human beings. But does the record up to the present time show that? I refer to the record of the massacres of which we hear, of the confiscations of which we hear, and of the imprisonments of innocent and holy people of which we hear. According to the bulletin of the SS. Peter and Paul missionaries, quoted in the Catholic Digest, the issue of April, 1952, here is what we find:

Bed China

Chinese prisons now hold 22 bishops, at least 400 priests and about 100 sisters. Since the communist regime began two years ago, missionaries forced to leave China number more than 1,500. About 1,000 foreign missionaries remain, including priests and nuns, plus 1,000 Chinese priests, next target of the Reds.

We have a tyranny in China and it is not to be passed over as just a mere minor affair; it is an international affair. The Chinese communists are doing in China what the communists did in Russia, what they did in Poland and what they did in any country over which they have been able to gain control.

I want to draw to the attention of the house another article. This is one which appeared in the March issue of the Catholic Digest, quoting the views of Archbishop Paul Yu-Pin, the archbishop of Nanking. This is a man who owns six dailies and two radio broadcasting stations in China. This will accentuate what I have already said as to how terrible is the situation in which we now find ourselves. We do not actually realize how serious the situation is. He says:

If China is written off as lost to communism, the whole of Asia will then soon fall. Save China, and you save Asia. If Asia is lost to the communists, lost with its vast storehouse of material resources and almost unlimited reservoir of manpower, can anyone doubt that, within our time, the communists will dominate the world? We are today witnessing the appearance of the real Yellow Peril.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):

Mr. Speaker,

I rise to take part in this debate with some diffidence. In spite of the outstanding contributions which have been made by many of the hon. members who have preceded me,

I feel that there are one or two points on which useful comment may still be made.

I am convinced that the salient fact that we should keep before us at the present time, and in this debate, is that we are now passing through an extremely critical period in world affairs and that, if we are to go through this period without disaster, we must approach the problems which are before us with a clear and a calm understanding and an almost detached view.

After the end of the second world war we in the western world passed quickly through the stage which we might call the stage of popular recognition of the danger of international communism. The phrase "our gallant Russian allies" quickly lost its meaning under the impact of a series of melancholy and unhappy events in eastern Europe and in Asia. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), who has just taken his seat, has referred to some of those events which took place in the Far East. As the result of this awakening of public realization of danger, those of us who had always recognized atheistic communism for what it is-the most dangerous and the most insidious international conspiracy and also, I think, the most brutal and imperialistic dictatorship that the world has ever known- were gradually joined by, I believe, a large and preponderating majority of the rightthinking people of the western world.

The result of this realization of danger was that the western nations embarked on a great program of self-defence. They embarked on the difficult task of turning from the hopes and the desires of peace to the building up of their collective strength for defence. The main instruments through which this program has been carried on are the Atlantic pact and, under it, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Before I conclude, I should like to say something with respect to that particular phase. Before that, however, I should like to say that from some points of view it is almost fantastic to refer to as success what has already been achieved; but from other points of view great forward strides have been made and the success that has been achieved has, I believe, brought us into a second stage and one which presents great dangers of its own. That is the stage at which the success which we are achieving in providing for our defence against aggression may give rise to a false sense of security which will not

External Affairs

only hinder the progress of our present program but might at the worst undo all the good which has already been done.

In such circumstances I think there is a duty on all those who believe that the danger from communist aggression is not past, so to state their belief and to state it without any equivocation or without any reservation whatsoever. For those who are in a position to do so it is also a duty to counteract, with the recounting of sober and unpleasant facts, *the work which communist propaganda is trying to do throughout the world today, namely to build up in the free world a false feeling of security. I believe it is this fact which renders important the divergence of views which has become apparent both inside and outside this house between the thinking and the policies of the Liberal party and this government on the one hand, and those of the C.C.F. party on the other.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in dealing with certain policy statements of the C.C.F. and statements made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), did not suggest that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was a communist. I think that the hon. member was correct, in his references to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs had said, in saying that he was not required to defend himself against a charge of communism. In fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not call him a communist. What the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as I heard and read his words- and said quite properly-was that the views of the C.C.F. party as officially expressed, both in this house and outside of it, come dangerously close to the present line of the communist party. I think-and I am sure *that many will agree with me-that the adoption by Canada, or by other countries of the western world, of the policies which are being advocated by the C.C.F. would be regarded by the Russians as a victory and a forward step, from their point of view. I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had an absolute duty to point out this danger and to express himself in the *terms and in the sense that he did.

This division of view, Mr. Speaker, proceeds very largely on the question of the importance and the necessity of economic aid and economic development within the western world, as opposed to the development of our immediate defence build-up. The hope and ideal of giving economic aid and assistance to underdeveloped countries, and to contribute to the rehabilitation of Europe, have a tremendous appeal to all Canadians. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it has its

External Affairs

greatest appeal to the Liberal party, and to the supporters of the Liberal party, because this party has, in the domestic sphere, such an outstanding record of achievement in the field of economic development and social betterment, as opposed to the record of talk about economic improvement and social betterment, which is virtually the sole boast of parties opposite.

However, Mr. Speaker, no matter how attractive the possibility of real economic aid may be, it is our duty to attend to our defence, and we must provide for our mutual security and the defence of freedom, liberty and justice as a first call upon our resources and our ingenuity.

The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), in the course of his remarks, moved an amendment to the present motion, which provides for a censuring of this government for not laying more stress on the performance of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. Article 2 of the treaty reads as follows:

The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

I have read article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty because I think that the reasons for voting against and defeating this amendment have already been clearly put on the record in this debate by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his opening speech, and by the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his very able speech, dealing with the measures which are being taken on the economic side. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government is putting the right emphasis on both features of our external policy at the present time. I hope, and I am sure that this hope is shared by all hon. members, that as the international situation improves in the future this emphasis may properly and gradually be shifted towards more constructive action in the economic field. However, at the present time we must keep before us the prime objective of ensuring first of all our security and the protection of our allies in the western world.

I should like to mention a few points arising out of the speech delivered in this debate by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). We always enjoy listening to the hon. member, and we listen to him with great attention and respect. However, I should like to quote what the hon. member for Peel had to say

at page 675 of Hansard, in referring to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs:

I thought that at one stage he sounded a rather hostile, and certainly a rather provocative note that, to my mind, was not justified in the circumstances. I hope he did not mean his words to be provocative; but, having in mind the fact that very recently he has been in another quarrel with another party in the house, I was wondering if he thought that perhaps he ought to even up the score, and suggest that some academic discussion should take place on some matters in connection with the Far East.

Then at page 677 he had this to say:

It is all very well for the minister and the government to say they are watching vigilantly to see how many people on this side of the house are going to support them in their Far Eastern policies and so on. Why, you would think he was trying to catch some of the people off guard on some of these academic questions. Instead of that, if I may say so, the minister should be recognizing his own responsibility for the confusion that exists in the public mind right across Canada.

I presume that in using those words the hon. member for Peel was referring to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in his opening remarks at page 662, as follows:

On this question, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clear. I hope that before this debate is finished the position of the official opposition, and of the other opposition parties, will also be made clear. We should know where we stand on these matters, and I hope that it will be shown that at least on essentials, and on principles, we stand together.

That is apparently the invitation that was characterized by the hon. member for Peel as an invitation to academic debate, and by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) as an invitation to schoolboy debate. It is my view that the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which I have quoted, is one that he had a duty to make and it is one that the leaders of the opposition parties have a duty to adopt, giving a clear statement of their policies.

The hon. member for Peel referred to confusion in the public mind. He may be correct that there is some confusion in the public mind on matters of external policy, but I believe that any confusion that does exist is not as to the government's position, but as to the position of the critics of the government. The succession of extremely clear and surprisingly detailed statements which have been made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs have placed the Canadian public in a very good position to determine easily what the policy of the government is on almost every important question in external matters that is facing this country at the present time. But I would very much doubt whether very many numbers of the public would be able to read the speech of the hon.

member for Peel and get any clear conception of what the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is on one or more of these very important problems. For example, the hon. member for Peel himself had this to say at page 674 of Hansard. Here he is speaking about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and he said:

But right at this moment, if I say nothing else with respect to our position in this debate, I wish to make it abundantly clear-and perhaps there is no need for us to make it clear-that at this time we feel strongly that the emphasis must be laid on and the urgent priority given to military preparedness and rearmament; because only behind a wall of military security can these other desirable objectives be achieved.

I think we should welcome that statement from the hon. member for Peel, but the phrase to which I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, is his statement that apparently he is afraid that nothing else regarding the position of his party will be clear as a result of his speech. I am very much afraid he was correct in that estimate of what he proposed to say. I feel therefore that if there is any confusion in the public mind in Canada the responsibility of the government with regard to that confusion is very small indeed. A real effort has been made to place matters of importance before the Canadian people, and to place them in a position to come to informed and reasonable conclusions about the matter.

However, there have been a great many statements from the other side of the house by spokesmen of opposition parties, which have been generally critical of the government's position, but have not dealt as fully as they should have with the points of view of those particular parties. The confusion, if it exists at all, is as a result of the failure of the opposition parties to make clear the points in respect of which they disagree with present government policy.

There is one thing however for which I think we ought all to be thankful, and that is that all parties in the house appear to be agreed on the necessity for the Atlantic pact, and our supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The support of that position, as voiced by the C.C.F. party, is subject to very grave reservations-

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Name the reservations.

Mr. Dickey:

-and some people may feel that the reservations are more important than the support. I hope that is not so.

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Name the reservations.

Mr. Dickey:

The hon. member has listened to the speeches of the hon. member for

External Affairs

Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and he knows the reservations as well as I do. But if there are no reservations, then I trust the hon. member, or some other member of his group, will make that abundantly clear. That is all I am asking.

Canada should feel a great sense of pride in the initiative she has taken in the formation of the Atlantic pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I remember very well indeed on a September evening in 1947 hearing over the radio a rebroadcast of a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who was then secretary of state for external affairs, and the leader of the Canadian delegation at the assembly of the United Nations. On that occasion he made a speech on behalf of Canada before the first plenary session of that assembly, and it was in that speech that the first public expression was given to the necessity and advisability of a treaty being concluded between the United States and the rest of the western world which, in time, became the Atlantic pact.

I remember the sincerity with which that speech was made and the realization I had afterwards that what had been suggested was something that held great possibilities for world peace, and for the unification of all those countries having similar ideals and purposes. I think that in the years that have passed since then we have all felt a great sense of pride that this Atlantic pact has become a reality and that it is recognized not only throughout the western world but in the communist world as well as largely a Canadian achievement. We must feel pride when we realize that to a great extent this has been the result of Canadian thought and initiative, and Canada's determination to cooperate with all like-minded countries in the establishment of a lasting peace.

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to follow the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). During the course of his speech he said that the C.C.F. had certain reservations about NATO. I think I asked him at least three or four times to tell me what the reservations were, or to tell the house, and he was either unwilling to do so or incapable of doing so. I suggest that the latter reason is probably the correct one.

Our position with regard to NATO is very clear-cut and very well known. We support NATO as it is at present constituted without any reservations whatsoever. But we do say this, that the government of this country-