22 NOVEMBER 1946, Page 12

MARGINAL COMMENT

By HAROLD NICOLSON

THE Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates which was published last Friday deals with the problem of British expenditure in Austria. It has appeared at a moment when Mr. Bevin and Mr. Byrnes are about to make a further attempt to persuade Mr. Molotov that it is about time that peace was con- cluded with that unhappy country. The reason why the Russians wish to prolong the occupation of Austria is, it seems, that it justifies their maintaining forces in other countries in order to "guard their lines of communication." Such an argument, were it ever advanced, would not be a tenable argument ; it is not fair to keep one man in prison merely because you wish to imprison three other men as well. I cannot believe that even Mr. Vyshinsky's dialectical talents can give to such an argument the semblance of logical validity. Yet here again we are being manoeuvred, or are drifting, into a false position. I am fully aware that in our rough island story occasions must occur when we are placed by the chain of circumstance in a position which is demonstrably false. But when the chain of circumstance is strung with a whole series of false positions, following each other like beads upon a string, it is inevitable that people should ask themselves whether either the chains or the beads are really necessary. I have no sympathy at all with those members of the Labour Party who have chosen this moment to suggest that Mr. Bevin does not command the united loyalty of his political supporters. I do not believe, moreover, that British rights and interests can be furthered by a foreign policy conducted upon ideological premises. But I certainly believe that the moment has come for us to re-examine ways and means and to satisfy ourselves that we are not pursuing nineteenth-century ends by means which in the twentieth century are inoperative. And I also believe that the public are not sufficiently informed, or aware of the present relation between our responsibilities and our power.

* *

In the nineteenth century the aim of British policy was to prevent the domination of Europe by any single Power or group of Powers. As a corollary to this principle, we identified British rights and interests with the independence of small countries. And we believed that such independence could best be safeguarded and developed by the furtherance, in those countries, of institutions founded upon the liberal-democratic model. Such a policy was not merely in accordance with the interests of British trade and security, but was at the same time palatable to the British conscience. " I have found," Sir Edward Grey once remarked, " that to do the right thing is generally the right thing to do." I am not suggesting that this attitude, although often complacent, was hypocritical. On the con- trary, no policy which was not based upon such liberal principles would have been acceptable to the British public or effective abroad. It may well be that we made a virtue of this necessity ; but it was a necessity none the less. And in the then existing balance of power it was possible for us, until 1914, to execute this policy with a certain economy of effort. Yet these traditional principles have left us, in the present changed conditions of Europe, with an inheritance with which it is difficult to cope. At home, we have inherited habits of thought, action or influence which are not easy to discard: abroad, the tradition has left behind it a residue of expectation to which we are not able to respond. Even in 1936, when visiting the Balkans, I found that they expected us, on the basis of our ancient principles, to defend them against Nazi infiltration ; it was most irksome to have to tell them that we could, in existing circum- stances, only affirm these principles by going to war. Today the smaller Powers may be aware that our physical force has declined ; but, owing to the moral influence we have acquired since 1940, their expectations have not diminished. Yet we are not strong enough to do the right thing always, everywhere ; all we can hope to do is not to do the wrong thing. And this implies a clearer recognition of where our own responsibilities begin and end.

* * In their report upon expenditure in Austria the Select Committee divulged that a large number of Jews have been migrating from Eastern Europe into the American zones in Austria and Germany with the intention of finally making their way to Palestine. This migration is described in the report as amounting to " a Second Exodus." It may well be that the immediate maintenance and disposal of these refugees is an American and not a British responsi- bility. But our own ultimate responsibility is engaged. Nor is this the only exodus. In Germany, in Austria and in Italy there are today some 800,000 to t,000,000 D.P.s who refuse to return to their countries of origin and who are now known as "Irrepatriate Refugees." In Germany there are some 709,000 of these exiles, in Austria 47,00o, and in Italy 28,000. They consist of 422,000 Poles, i6o,000 Baits, 30,000 Yugoslays, and an undetermined figure for Ukrainians and Jews. In the British zone in Germany there are 163 " assembly centres " or camps for these- refugees, 51 of which are directly administered by Military Government, and the remainder by U.N.R.R.A. and its affiliated societies. Most of these refugees were deported by the Nazis as slave-labourers and have spent the last six years in labour or concentration camps. They dare not return to their .own countries for fear of being liquidated ; they are in the position of exiles, without status or known future. And whatever sympathy our authorities may feel for these wretched people, it is inevitable that they should constitute a liability and an encumbrance for the occupying Power.

* * I have been reading this week a report written by two reliable observers who have recently returned from visiting the Assembly centres for these D.P.s in the British zone in Germany. They speak highly of the efforts made by the officials of Military Government and U.N.R.R.A. to mitigate the sufferings and to maintain the morale of these unfortunate exiles " Although," they write, " large numbers of refugees are mouldering purposeless and aimless, there is in many camps a fine leaven which refuses to lose heart, and for this fact the enthusiasts in Military Government, U.N.R.R.A. and the Voluntary Societies should be given full credit" Their diffi- culty in encouraging and maintaining some sort of cultural life among these D.P.s is increased by the fact that there is an almost total lack of ink, paper, books, cloth, canvas and other materials. It is not easy to organise lectures and classes with only one text-boc'i: for a whole class, with no printing-press, and with only odd scraps of paper on which to write. But even the most devoted official must find it difficult to inspire hope and self-respect in people who have spent many years in a concentration camp already, who arc afraid of returning to their own country and who can be given no assured prospect of creating a new life fur themselves overseas. The schemes . for the resettlement of these D.P.s have not as yet been either extensive, or precise. Great Britain has agreed to accept a limited number of Baits to serve as hospital-servants. Brazil and Paraguay have also made some tentative offers. And the United States has a scheme which, at the outset, will mainly benefit the Jews. But as a whole these exiles feel that asylum is being denied them, and this impression is confirmed by the direct and indirect pressure being exercised to induce them to return to their home countries. They drag out their days in an atmosphere of appre- hension and despair.

Here is a situation where our direct responsibility is involved ; a situation in which we can not only avoid doing wrong but can do right. A new organisation, to be known as the I.R.O:, or Irrepatriate Refugees Organisation, is to be established under U.N.O. Under a resolution taken in May last I.R.O. is not to concern itself with the fate of those who sponsored movements " encouraging refugees not to return to their country of origin." If this resolution means anything, it means that I.R.O. will not concern itself with the fate of those who, in the several camps, have acquired leadership among their compatriots. It is our responsibility to see that this resolution is not so interpreted as to send these wretched people to their death.