Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎166v] (332/442)

w
2025
Supply {Committee). HOUSE OF
[Mr. Bonar Law.]
to be special danger of war, but every night
in the year, all along the French-German
fiontier sentries stand facing each other
with loaded and, I am told, cocked rifles.
All along these frontiers there are masses
of men on both sides. As the Committee
knows, the-great bulk of the population
of these countries serves in the Army. The
numbers who go to the frontier are con
stantly changed. The result is that the
whole population, or a large part of the
population, of France and Germany realise
in a way that we never realise that there
is a danger of sudden attack. I have been
told, and I believe it is true, that the con
stant realisation of that danger has had
a very steadying influence upon French
policy. That is a kind of consideration
from which for one hundred years we have
been free. We are not free from it now.
We are really, I think, in precisely the
same position as these other Powers. Now
the second greatest naval Power is there
facing us within a few hours of our shore.
It is really like a loaded cannon pointed
at us. I dare say the hon. Member for
Stirling (Mr. Ponsonby) may think w r hat
I am saying is provocative. I do not
think so. The Germans might say of
equal truth of our Navy, that it is a loaded
cannon pointed at them. The Germans
are not a nervous or a weak people. They
are never afraid so far as I know—and I
think I know them fairly well—of having
the facts stated as they are, or afraid of
recognising them. That makes a great
difference in our situation. It makes it a
fact that we are always liable to possible
attack; indeed, in one sense, it is worse
than a land frontier, for all the experts
admit that the initiative, the beginning
of war, may be much more deadly
in the case of naval engagements,
than in the case of land operations. All I
mean by referring to this is to try and
bring home to this country that our
position has changed. Not that I think we
are in danger, but there has been a
change, and as wise men we must realise
that change. It is from that point of view
that our foreign policy is so important.
To me it seems that now even more than
in previous times, our foreign policy is
hardly less important to our national
security than our defensive policy. There
is no difference of opinion as to what our
foreign policy should be.
The right hon Gentleman said to-night
that the Triple entente, the good under
standing with France and Russia, should
COMMONS Foreign Office, 2026
be the starting point of our foreign
policy. I prefer to say ' that it
is the keynote of our foreign policy.
Very often in the newspapers I see articles
which speak of this understanding as if
it were something that we should talk of
in an apologetic way, as though it were
unfriendly to Germany and other coun
tries. That seems to me the utmost ab
surdity. Let the Committee realise how
absurd it is. For I do not know how many
years the Triple Alliance has existed in
Europe. I am sure it was formed in the
interests of peace, but it is at least as
minatory as this understanding with
France and Russia. Yet during all these
years no one in this country has ever
dreamed of considering that that under
standing was hostile or unfriendly to us,
or that we had the smallest right even
if we did think so. It is absurd to suggest
that we have not the right to make the
same understanding. The right hon. Gen
tleman quoted an official communique,
which to my mind expressed the highest
statesmanship, and which I will read
again:—
l ' There could be no question in the European area
either of new agreements, because there was no parti
cular occasion for them, or of producing alterations of
any kind in the grouping of the European Powers,
the value of which for the maintenance of the equili
brium and of peace has already been proved.”
That is the use of this Agreement. The
strength of this particular part of our
foreign policy is this: it is not the policy
of that Government; it was not the policy
of their predecessors, or it was equally the
policy of their predecessors. What is far
more important, it is a policy which is
necessitated by the facts of the situation.
It is the national policy of this country.
It was really for the purpose of saying this
that I have taken part in the Debate. It
is the policy of this country, and if the
party to which I belong is ever returned to
power, it will equally be the policy of that
party.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to reply
especially to the remarks which fell from
the hon. Member for Stafford at an earlier
period of the sitting of the Committee, and
I should like to compare the remarks which
fell from the hon. Member with the very
friendly and temperate reference to Ger-
many which nas fallen from the right hon.
Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition
with which, I am sure, we all sympathise.
I was indeed surprised when the hon. Mem
ber for Stafford said to the right hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs that, seeing that Members upon