thumbnail of 31st Couchiching conference; A new Europe: A British view
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
The coaching conference. Good evening I'm Bob Wilson and I'd like to welcome you to the first broadcast of a 30 first conference from Geneva park Ontario. The discussions are presented annually by the Canadian Institute on public affairs in cooperation with the CBC and the subject under examination this year is the new Europe. The first speaker of this conference will present British you of European progress since the war and an examination of the reasons for Britain's present negotiations. You Mr William D CLARKE And here to introduce him is tonight's chairman John Holmes president of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. Good evening. The topic for discussion in general terms as evening and in details for the week is as you have heard the new Europe. I think we have in recent years it created Ching looked at Asia we've looked at Latin America and many continents and now it seems as if in our constant quest for new worlds we've come full circle. We are now asked as the new
world to look at the Old World in reverse. I think that most of us perhaps find this new phenomenon fascinating and at the same time perhaps disconcerting and therefore we're very happy and reassured to have such a distinguished group of Europeans here to appear live and tell us what's happening to them and what they're up to. I think perhaps it's fair to say that our Canadian attitudes to the new Europe are as paradoxical as our attitudes to the old Europe. Canadians perhaps have habitually looked upon Europe them with a mixture of deference and resentment of respect and reprobation a sense never perhaps acknowledged of cultural inferiority and moral superiority. We are after all those who got out of Europe both for. Good reasons and bad. We have suffered perhaps or perhaps we just think we've suffered from the superior airs of Europeans and have goaded. Perhaps we too can share something of the
resent ment of the gynae and or the Cambodian but at the same time we are deeply conscious of our roots and our heritage in Scotland our Normandy in the poll Latinate or the Ukraine. Perhaps of course we haven't thought very much of Europe as an entity at all particularly not as an entity which included its offshore islands and this is one of the most disconcerting aspects. So which we are now expected to adjust ourselves well is more sense of moral superiority which we have had has reassured us a good deal I think particularly when Europeans remind us as they insistently do of the woeful lack of opera houses in our country. But this sense I think has also been supplemented by a conviction of both economic and political superiority. But lately however the Europeans have shaken rather profoundly our certainty that we rather than they have the key to prosperity. And furthermore the zeal and invention that has been displayed in the creation of the framework of an economic
community has raised in many quarters in this country admiration for a new and unsuspected kind of political imagination on the continent. I say the continent specifically because I think no Canadians Canadians except the angry young have ever doubted the political genius of the British. Now whatever our worries and they are considerable over the effects on our own trade I think there is a little bit of admiration here for the economic miracle of Western Europe. But on the political side we're as divided and open to conviction as Europeans themselves and not for selfish reasons. Only now I think that Europeans may well have the impression that our concern with the new Europe is solely a concern over the price of aluminum and the preservation of our sacred right to bully the British in the name of the Commonwealth. But for this impression we have perhaps only ourselves to blame but the conclusion is wrong nevertheless because I think that beyond the fuss
and the fury over preferences is a deep concern over the political implications of what is happening in Europe. There are hope and expectation restrained by uneasiness. Are we witnessing the triumph of internationalism over nationalism. Is Europe regenerated at last going to go straight or is mean spirited nationalism merely going to be replaced by an equally mean spirited Continental ism. Edmund Burke in his reflections on a previous French Revolution commented the Age of Chivalry is God that of Sophos thers economists and calculators has succeeded and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Or maybe some of them might suspect that in this rhetoric he had a forewarning of the Brussels bureaucracy. But I think that we would all prefer to be convinced during this week's session that if I might outrageously paraphrase Burke's great contemporary William Pitt you were in Europe is saving herself by
her exertions and the rest of us by her example. Now it's appropriate that our first speaker on this subject should be a countryman of the aforementioned Picton Chatham. We Canadians have often I think much too often boasted of our progress in the art of Link's penmanship but now it's up to the British to be linchpins. If I might borrow a rather tired metaphor for instance between Europe and Canada Mr William cark has himself made a notable contribution to reducing the Atlantic gap by studying at Oxford and the University of Chicago and even stayed on to lecture in Chicago and to serve the British Information Service on that rather sticky wicket. Canadians grew to respect his name during his many years on the observer. When his brilliant and perceptive reports from India and Africa and his diplomatic correspondent at large were reproduced in our papers Mr Clarke
has been in and out of official life. He served Sir Anthony Eden as a public relations advisor during his period of Prime Minister and interlude from Mr cartes work on the observer since 1960. He had been director of the Overseas Development Institute in London and the whole world is again his props. I might say he is no stranger to microphones for he's a considerable luminary in his own country. I think it's typical of his generosity of attitude that he has blessed both the BBC and the ATV. So I am very happy that for this first evening we have with us Mr. William part hundred. Well thank you. And I suppose that really we ought to begin by asking ourselves what in fact is this new Europe. I can give only one person's on so from the point of view of someone living in
the offshore island and perhaps with some of the arrogance which is associated with the British attitude towards Europe it does seem to me there that the new Europe which is taking a new place in the modern world is in a sense the UN self-confident to the mood up which committed suicide. Finally at the second attempt in 1939 to 45 and we ought always to remember that there is something a bit odd and rather sordid about the family history which helps to explain much in the attitude of the old uncles who are launching this young on the very much suspecting world. After all when we look at the old Europe the last big party which the old Europe shortly before going off its head was Munich in one thousand thirty eight. At that time the big
fall meant to settle the fate of the world. The Big Four Well Britain France Germany and Italy amongst those who were not present and whose fate was to be settled in their absence where lesser powers such as Russia and the United States when the next big international party was held which was in 1045 at San Francisco. Europe could hardly put in an appearance and could hardly make its voice heard. That's the measure of the difference between the old Europe and the beginnings of the new and San Francisco. We discussed how to reshape the world. The result was in fact the United Nations which is not today quite what we expected it would be then. But for Europe the question then was how and in what form to rebuild Europe from the ashes for Britain. That is special
question was whether to go around picking about in the Ashes anyway or to withdraw from Europe from which we had so recently been and for so long forcibly excluded. Those are the questions of 1945 the sort of Europe we were to build and the sort of association Britain was to have with it. And they remain the questions of 1962. It seems possible that even while we're here our chapter will begin to come to a conclusion and we shall know both what sort of a Europe it is and what Britain's relationship is going to be. Going back to 1945 the choice of what sort of a Europe it is going to be seem that in much wider than it can possibly do is say today that seemed as I saw it at the time. Three possible solutions to the European problem. There was the possibility of what I would call a Swedish solution. That is to say that Britain that Europe
would become a neutralised bloc without power but with lots of pensions. That is to say that there would be in fact a sort of second international state generally speaking socialist because generally speaking there was a socialist government in power in 1945 with a welfare state of sorts but not playing any great row as a world power. That was one possible solution. Another possible solution was what I would call the Prussian side. In this case Europe was to become something of a third force between Russia and America. Certainly a power in the world that would have to be sacrifices at home in order that we could build up our strength as an international power. And in order that we particularly Britain France Holland etc could maintain our empire around the
world and maintain ourselves there whole as a prime power in the world. Then last there was what I would call the federal solution. This was the idea of a sort of United States of Europe which as its name implies aid was somehow fairly closely to be linked to the United States of America in something which was not federal but was perhaps confit that last solution was the one that was canvassed very considerably in the last year of the war. But it was not immediately successful after the war. In fact all these solutions all these possible. Methods of rebuilding Europe have left their mark on the Europe that is being rebuilt today. For instance just two examples. The existence of two independent nuclear deterrents in Britain and in France
is a sign of our remaining education to what I call the Prussian solution to maintaining ourselves as a sort of power and to making sacrifices in order to retain that power. On the other hand the almost universal acceptance of what I believe is called socialized medicine throughout Western Europe is a sign of what I originally called the Swedish solution the welfare state solution for Europe. In fact neither of those solutions to the European problem became possible in the long run to man Marshall Stalin and George Marshall forced us into the third solution the one of some sort of a real close relationship with the United States of America and therefore almost inevitably some attempt to arrive at a United States of Europe in at least the west of Europe because Marshall Stalin who pushed us
to get together in the West did in fact divide Western Europe off from Eastern Europe. By 1950 the question really was no longer what sort of course Europe was going to take but what sort of the United States of Europe there was going to be. And here we are almost at once the extreme disunity of the United became apparent they were once again three or four theses as to what sort of a United States of Europe there was to be. There was the Hoffman thesis roughly speaking the Marshall Plan pieces integrate or else he used to say and what he meant particularly was that there should be some form of integration of the markets of Europe so as to achieve the economies of scale so as to have in fact a market comparable in size with the
United States market. Another rather deep idea about European unity was that put forward by three remarkable men all of whom were born in what is in the early Middle Ages was called The Middle Kingdom between France and Germany. They were gassed and Schuman and those three men had an idea which is remain today of a political Europe a political unity based indeed on that middle kingdom of now France Germany and Italy. Finally there was the British do of what sort of a United States of Europe there should be and one must remember that the idea of the United States of Europe. The phrase originally being one of H.G. Wells is in that sense is British. And the idea of union in Europe was preached by no one
more strongly in the years immediately after the war than our great leader Winston Churchill. So Britain did have its contribution to make towards the idea of a united Europe but our idea of a united Europe and Churchill's idea of a united Europe in particular was one not based on the model of the United States of America but based on the model of the Commonwealth. The idea was in fact that there should be a great deal of consultation. Not too much bickering in public but no interference with sovereignty. I'm speaking of the days of Commonwealth negotiation. In fact the idea behind the British plan for Europe reached I suppose is its best embodiment in the sea the organization for European Economic Cooperation.
A body of bureaucrats able dedicated to increasing the economic freedom of trade etc. in Europe but not all acting in relationship to the governments trying to arrive at compromises certainly but never able by anything like a majority vote or anything of that sort to commit to governments which had not themselves decided already that this was the path they wanted to tread. Eventually this British do what I call the common welfare of a united Europe came into conflict with the view that had prevailed in Europe which was a mixture of the Hoffman thesis of an integrated market and the Monday thesis then in fact you could not have an integrated market and plan for economic development unless you had some political power that is in
fact the basis of the European Common Market a basis which became perfectly apparent at the time that the European coal and steel community was invented in the 1950s. It is important I think to recognize that when we talk about the European common market we are not just talking as Britain for a long time I thought people went on about a tariff arrangement that is also the economic arrangements which are involved in trying to increase economic production by a planning process. By 1950 as I say with the beginning of the coal and steel community and particularly at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Rome it is quite clear that a European organization of some sort was coming into being. Why did Britain
stay out of it and why it finally and more recently did she start changing her mind. I think that if we can understand that we can understand Europe today and we can understand the place that it's beginning to take in the New World the New World which is not just the Western Hemisphere. First of all then why exactly did Britain stay out. There are personal things in this. In fact I think perhaps if so Winston Churchill had had his own way we might have gone in his foreign ministers friends and even later the prime minister was never a European. And I think his influence in this was perhaps the size of it. But there were much deeper reasons psychological reasons in the British people for our not going into the into Europe. The fact was that our history in the war had been
completely different from that of Europe and had cut us off from Europe. Our back was not broken as the back of sovereignty was broken in most of the European countries by the wall 1940 for Britain. In our own view of ourselves was our finest hour. It was not a period of humiliation and defeat. Sovereignty therefore mattered to us tremendously. It was not a broken toy that had been glued together again. For that reason rightly or wrongly Britain had and there was a deep attachment to its own sovereignty. And there is a great suspicion of anything that tends to interfere with our right to go our own way at the dictate of our own parliament. The second reason I believe for Britain's not getting into Europe during the
whole of the 1950s and let me say at an earlier period during the Labor government in the late 1940s. The other reason was a traditional isolationism towards Europe. We thought when the common market began that it wouldn't work. And when asked to justify this amongst ourselves the answer always was it's a high flown theoretical idea like the idea of the European Army which also failed and analogized that in fact there would not be a European common market because we believed to be specific that the French wouldn't allow it to happen. Another reason was an old will of the wisp that keeps on entering into the into British thinking which was our feeling that we had a special relationship with the United States and that we must not allow that special relationship with the United States to be interfered with
by or associated with a lot of other people many of whom didn't even speak English. Finally the important Commonwealth ties the importance of the ties of the Commonwealth. Well perhaps quite largely sentimental but that doesn't mean that they are not that important in a political democracy. The fact was that in differing ways the Commonwealth an empire pulled both right and left together in Britain away from Europe for the right wing and for the Tories generally the charm was of the Empire and it was the association with the old dominions with its echoes perhaps of past glory. And above all it's the sensation of the glory not being altogether past. This was of considerable appeal
to the right. Traditionally the left in Britain was anti imperial but it was pre Commonwealth because the left felt that is strongly that we had learnt the secret of laying down our empire and that the association particularly with India began in 1907 changed into the Republican relationship in 1049 that this was a great achievement and was in fact the egg of a new world in which rich countries and poor Asian countries African and European would be associated together. The Commonwealth has always had a great appeal in the post-war era to the left to as the Empire had and has to the right. I think generally whether people were political or not there was a feeling whenever there was a commonwealth prime ministers meeting that there
was something very clever about the way in which we had succeeded in releasing quite a large number of people from making them prime ministers and bringing them to Buckingham Palace. Why then did we change from this point of view. Why in fact did Britain not continue to row slightly away from the tides that were carrying us towards the complement and maintain that great barrier that we had at the time that we had three circles that we had to maintain our relationship with Europe. Our relationship with the commonwealth and our relationship with North America. It was a nice thing it reminded one of advertising slogans and so on. Why didn't we stick by it. And I think again the reason has to be said somewhat somewhat unkindly and not very popular
because in fact all our assumptions failed. The common market did work. The French whatever else they may have done didn't stop it working. And rather unlucky the European Free Trade Area which we began didn't work. That was one assumption not done. Our special relationship with America which was signalized as always by the prime minister and having a long talk with the president in Washington suddenly turned out to involve the prime minister being told very very firmly get him to Europe or else this is not said in public. It may not even be true since what is said between the prime minister and the president is not usually published but certainly that is what many journalists know wrong. Thought happened at that particular meeting so our special relationship with
America turned out to be a hefty push into your last live. And this is most difficult to say in some sense. The Commonwealth failed to live up to expectations. Now what do I mean by that. Because it's the most delicate part of this and I need I didn't mean in fact that there has been a general feeling in Britain which has not that the Commonwealth is not significant but just as we did see the common market becoming a really powerful economic force. So we saw that the Commonwealth was not becoming a powerful economic force with economic growth built in with agreement amongst us all to move in the same direction under a common Aegis is of economic arrangement. This did not happen and there was no planning of expansion in the Commonwealth. As I was planning of expansion in
Europe and people who visited around the commonwealth and came back because that plane journey made it possible through yo. I did notice a certain difference and the figures which appear in the back pages of newspapers did begin to show a gradual shift in trade so that the growth in trade was in Europe and not within the Commonwealth. Secondly politically politically it can't be said in any sense I hope that the Commonwealth failed but it was a bit of a disappointment particularly to the right. The new Commonwealth in fact certainly did not turn out to be a source of economic strength to us. It was on the contrary a drain on our resources because of the demands for development. And at the same time the new Commonwealth did not always
vote with that loyalty that we like in favor of us right or wrong. At the United Nations the new Commonwealth was found all too frequently against us sometimes of Canada. In this instance the series was a turning point because Great Britain found itself admittedly with a vote from Australia or New Zealand on our side and of course one from France and Israel but deserted generally by the Commonwealth as a home and a real fear began to arise about that time that we had somehow or other miss the European bus. And as the new European bus began to disappear around the corner as often happens it suddenly looked very attractive. Why. Primarily let me say because
of its wealth the. The amount of Minke on that bus seemed to indicate that it was a good bus to be in when we've spent all holidays on the continent. As many of us and more and more of us do. It was apparent that the comment that the continent of Europe was a very go ahead place. It was a really affluent society. And since nations have many emotions including that of a desire to be quite well-off and a very proper one too we began to wonder whether in fact the European bus wasn't an important line for us to get on to. There are other thoughts about it however. Then as now because Europe like Renaissance Italy was rich splendid and divided and this is a fact about the new Europe. But we must not forget
the new Europe is only a part of Europe. The division runs through the center of the up and it runs through the center of one of the main countries in the new Europe Germany. We must remember when we talk about European unity that we are talking about the fall AMD of a peninsula of a continent. The Western European area is not very large geographically for all that it is tremendously important economically. And that division which runs down through Germany means that in fact the great division of the world politically runs through it and it means therefore that in fact Europe needs to be defended from outside by the American the terrorist. They're full. However much Britain wants and wanted to go into year we always had to
realise that it was not going to be possible for us to get into Europe and turn our backs on other parts of the world. And there was a good deal of fear amongst British people that that was exactly what Europe itself was wishing to do. I didn't myself think that that particular fella is a very real one but it is one that is widely entertained in Great Britain. And when we regard the new Europe and ask what sort of a continent it is I think continent and islands I think we have to ask ourselves a bubble what its relationships with the rest of the world will be. First of all with North America it's bound to be linked because in terms of defense Europe cannot stand on its own feet. On the other hand Europe is very anxious to assert its independence of the United States. That is why both Britain and France are building their
independence. The Turks. There is another link which is that in fact in terms of trade it's impossible for us to imagine ourselves not linked with North America by the fact that we are both affluent societies and temperate ups and downs. I know about the diamonds temporary ups and downs do not in fact of alter the fact that North America or state side or side is in fact an affluent society. Secondly the relationship of Europe with Russia. There are very considerable rifts within the existing alliance. German a doctor chancellor of Germany and any rate is determined that shall not be any lessening of the determination to defend
and ultimately the right of Germany to be reunited. All the suggestions originally made strongly by Mr Macmillan not to some extent taken up by President Kennedy that an accommodation with Russia must be reached a point of view which is very widely held indeed in Great Britain. All those attempts to arrive at an accommodation are regarded with considerable distrust by Dr. Adams and by many of his supporters and by many people in Germany. And I think we have got to realize that when we talk about a new Europe and a united Europe it is not a very united because on two of the main issues relationship with the United States and the relationship with Russia there are very different views running through the foreign policies of the main participants. Lost There is the question of what sort of a relationship
Europe is going to have with the two thirds of the world which have virtually come into a political existence since the end of the Second World War. The relationship with the underdeveloped countries which in my opinion is one of the crucial relationships that has got to be worked out for the new Europe is since the new Europe is a Europe which has been dissin barest of its impact. And there is a very considerable possibility that having relinquished political control around the world the new Europe will be disinterested economically in those countries. To this it seems to me is the great question in a way for Europe today what sort of a relationship is it going to find with its own ex-colonies. At the moment there is a division between the outward lookers and the inward looking. I
didn't know how this is going to end. I think that this is the great drama that we're going to be watching in the next few months. But I would say that it is worth trying to identify the players in this drama. First of all the outward look at those those who in fact wish Europe to have strong connections with the ex-colonies. They consist of course part of the ex imperialists who now say that the important thing is to stop these countries from going over to the other side in the Cold War. There are also among the outward lookers a great number of the traders who are anxious both to keep their investment in this country is fertile and secondly to maintain the trade that they that we have built up between for instance Britain and in Africa France and its colonies Holland which is that had such ill luck in
its relationship with its Indonesian ex-colonies. But that is lost amongst the outward looking as those who might be called The Wind of Change people those who recognise as I do and I say myself that in fact it is absolutely crucial that. The economy of the affluent economy of the Western world should be made relevant to the most important revolution going on in the world today which is the attempt of two thirds of the world to end the state of poverty in which they have lived since the beginning of time. If that if that affluent economy cannot be made relevant to that great issue of time then I think there is very little chance indeed that it will be able to remain an economy that is viable in the modern world. But
it is not unfortunately true that there are no inward look as in Europe today. In my own country in Britain and in Europe a good number of people who for one reason or another are prepared to shrug their shoulders about the Europe the parts of the world which were once parts of European empires all at a distance from us. They said that the important thing in fact is to concentrate on the places where money is to be made investments are to be profitable to concentrate in fact on making the rich richer rather than on worrying about the problems of the poor which seem so intractable. There are a lot of other people too who dislike very intensely the politics of the Afro Asian group which have been at the United Nations as I said earlier very often critical of us
and they feel that the best thing to do having laid down political Contro is to return and cultivate God and they feel that they are a good many more kicks than happens to be found in trying to do something for these countries which were once part of the Empire. That as I see it the two points of view they are now in the Common Market negotiations beginning to have something of a trial of strength. Because I would say that the really important thing to see about the new Europe which is going to emerge as the result of current negotiations in Brussels is this is the objective of the European Common Market and later perhaps something broader including North America after Mr. Kennedy's statement about interdependence. Is this vast rich trading area really concerned primarily with increasing its own wealth
or with increasing the trade of the world so that there may be an increase in the standard of living in the two thirds of the world which has been practically unhelped by the miracle which has happened since the Second World War in making Europe and North America the dynamo of the economic world. This is the question which would be settled. I believe in the next few weeks on it. In my opinion depends not only the future of the world but also the sort of new Europe that we are going to see if it goes the wrong way. We will not see the new Europe for very long. Bad bad bad bad bad. I
am. I am. Thank you very much Mr. Clarke I think we would all agree that our speaker this evening is brilliantly illuminated very many dark places and given us the point of view if I might use his own phrase an outward look or it's a curious thing it's fashionable now particularly in Europe and elsewhere to accuse the British of being insular. And the British themselves seem to enjoy applying that energy to themselves. But it's a strange thing of people who've refused to confine themselves to one rather small landmass and have made themselves at home and seven seas and six continents. One could call them a covetous or restless or perhaps even daft but to call them insular is always seemed to me to me rather strange. And for this reason it's very useful to us this evening to head this statement from a man who is himself a world citizen. Now we are shortly going
to have questions from the floor. Just why York making up your minds on the question I'm going to take advantage of my position here just to ask Mr. Clarke if he would follow up one point he made. Mr. Clarke himself is professionally concerned with problems of economic development and he said some very interesting things about the necessity for Europeans to concern themselves with economic development in other countries. I'm just wondering a little about the attitude of what we might call in you your opinions on this subject. When I was in Africa a few months ago I found Africans very suspicious for instance of the plans of the east See for an economic development fund they suspected that this was just a fund which would be manipulated quite unscrupulously for selfish European political ends. Is this fair. It's not fair but it's true. I mean by that that in fact there is this danger and certainly it is true that a great number of Africans and it's primarily Africa is concerned in this. Do you fear
that this would be a form of neo colonialism. It is for them to reason that I regard it as absolutely essential at the time at which the negotiations on the Common Market and Britain's entry come to a conclusion which ever way they go it's absolutely essential that there should be some declaration by all the rich trading nations of what they really intend to do in their new trade patterns and the sort of decoration I want to see is one which states two things. First that there is the expectation that trade will be carried on so as to ensure our high and steady flow of international currency exchange into the developing areas. Secondly that in the long run the developed economies accept the fact that they will have to accept into their economy goods manufactured in the low cost areas unless that is done unless those
two things are made clear as statements of intention then always there will be this great suspicion that the objective of the Common Market Development Fund etc. is only to keep. Africa in its position as doctor to Cooma said as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Keeping them in fact simply as primary producers. And that danger of finding that in fact the Common Market divides Britain. If we go in right off from Africa and dominions is one of the greatest dangers today and one that is I think probably very much underestimated in my own country. Thank you. Now may we have questions from the floor. I would like to know. Oh i soon as possible that you have obvious divide it by making an objection to Mr. Klock. My objection is
related to his last point. He said that in the present discussion in blissful there is a clash between the outward looking in the inward looking. I really believe that is a question of fact that it is not to the present main object of discussion is the agricultural products of the so-called white Commonwealth. And it cannot be said that the different agricultural regulation the one wanted by the British and the other one preferred by the six has anything to do with the question of outward looking inward looking. Secondly among the six the French we may be specially difficult in the present discussion about agricultural project are in favor of very large aid to the under developed countries. That special case on that special point France has a good record and may be badly done but certainly in
opposition to Goethe national product. The rate is higher in France that in Great Britain certainly is a question of maintaining irregular flow of currencies. The French and the six. I have always been in favor of studies ation of the planets of formative years which is one of the wishes of the underdeveloped Countess. So to summarize my objection. I don't want to believe that the present discussion between Britain's A6 and the special stake of the discussion is really zero position between schools of thought. Perhaps I might just say for the benefit of our radio audience that very interesting intervention was from the syrup on of Le Figaro in Paris. I'm delighted to cross swords with you because we have done in the past and remained I hope made good friends and certainly I am a great admirer of your writings.
I would say this I fully accept first of all fully that France has in fact done in its African territories particularly more in the way of technical assistance and the provision of money than any other country in the world. And your record is extremely good. Secondly it is perfectly true that the present discussions on the surface of Brussels dealing with the products of the commonwealth of the developed Commonwealth are not. To do with the problem of being inward looking or I quit looking I was more concerned with another fact which is the danger to India from the negotiations that have been going on so far. I do agree that a lot is being thought about aid to Africa. I agree in that sense that the common market is certainly outward looking. I'm afraid it may have black blinkers and what I want to be reassured about is that there is an understanding
that trade with Asia is going to have to increase enormously in the future that we are going to have to accept for instance very much more in the way of manufactured goods such as textiles from India. If in fact we have succeeded in winning that crucial battle where India is trying to achieve. An industrial revolution by consent and not by authoritarianism. What has been of concern to me has been the fear that what would be decided on was that there would be a certain amount of tariffs against Indian goods as some extent already in Britain but that the object of the tattered changes would be to keep trade at about the same level. Not to reduce it. I want to see it expanded that it is fast and I believe that this nation's side of things is the crucial one and the
danger from the British will do on this is that it may get forgotten in our inward looking this when we are looking due south of us to Europe and to Africa. I'm not looking out to the east. Me worn out looking but between those who looked oh out of Africa and those who looked I was Asian. In that case the discussion is a vase on no classical time and has something to do with political interest. May be may I said one other word. The end of your very eloquent talk was for me slightly too eloquent. Completely in favor of helping the underdeveloped world of ours we better assist the developing world. But I don't believe that we are in such a danger of being destroyed even if we don't do what all the what we should do.
So when you see if we are to are in war looking for a new Europe will not endure for long. In that case I believe you are slightly too pessimistic as a future of yours. I think we must go into this one in fact in greater detail later in the week that I think on Friday of next week I would just say this. I feel that it is of the utmost importance to recognize that we are facing a world development problem and not one that can be localized. Secondly I would say this that there is not the same threat that we will be destroyed by the underdeveloped countries by revolt of the masses or anything of that sort as there is the threat of a nuclear destruction. I do believe that the world faces two almost equal threats to its stability. One is the nuclear one and the other is the possibility that the gap between the rich countries and the poor will grow so wide that it is impossible to
build on that foundation any stable world order. In that case the fall and of the peninsula of the continent which is what Europe is will find itself destroyed in the collapse of world order around it. You're my murdered her daughter brought him from for it first I must apologize that I am very poor in my English and therefore I must simplified it what I wanted to explain but in the point which we are discussing. No. I might support Sir my French colleague then I think there can be no doubt the answer on the question. If subcontinental countries. If so six easy countries want to cooperate closely. We still going to ping countries. And are
willing to give them assistance not only financial spare and also in the human sphere. So I answer on this question has already been given. We are doing it already and I am sure in any case in any case this means independent from the coming negotiation regarding widening our community. We want to cooperate closely and effectively with developing countries. I might not cite any figure us but to figure us are a relatively high and Im sure they will become yet higher. And second point I sink. The problem of so-called neo Korean newsman is a worldwide problem and perhaps every one of us must always see that he
is able to avoid any sort of new nail color and colonialism and but also in this point I think one cannot make a distinction between the edge it would offset seeks on the continent and other industrialized countries. We are trying to avoid any sort ends our own treaty in this point is quite clear is absolute clear counter any against any sort of neocolonialism. They are not to say that. We are always able to avoid to holds in to start action. But I think we can say that we are trying to do it. This all means not that we are not extremely interested that the coming negotiations together with Britain and as our efforts our countries will be successful. But I think so results
are laying specially more on other regions in other parts not so in that what we were discussing. No we are wanting this widening out of political and economic reasons and we are wanting this because we are also hoping that we can more creating and Atlantic cooperation and so have some circus so narrow of the six and then wider and wider. But we should not complicate all this in mixing the problems of developing countries in this in this manner which we heard here from our very good speaker on the tape. Thank you. I don't want to give the impression which is not in my mind that I'm saying that Britain stands tall a expansionist trade and attention to the underdeveloped
countries and is finding these six uncooperative that is not so. The six has on the Ho been doing a very good job indeed in the Africans particularly of development. But what I'm saying is something that is addressed to all the people of Brussels which including very much the British negotiators which is this what really we creating this European common market for what we in fact hoping to create as the last because they probably said a broader circle of trading arrangements fall easy simply in order to increase the already pretty considerable affluence of societies. We in fact recognizing this as I see it prime economic problem of our time which is that of making sure that economic. Affluent Society is relevant to this problem of
raising standards in two thirds of the world. We are not going to raise the standards of life of something like 2 billion people. My business is usual with a modicum of charity. It is going to demand a strategy for development and it is for that strategy that I have been looking somewhat vain. In my own country in Brussels and elsewhere was to mark gain earlier that canal earlier tonight. I wanted to address my question to Mr Clarke but this would have been quite ridiculous. Being an outsider in Canada addressing a question on Europe to an outsider from Britain and I was delighted to see that we have Franco-German representation and if I may I'd like to address my questions to them rather than to Mr Clarke. So begins the thirty first annual coaching conference that I had speaker was Mr
William D Clarke director of the Overseas Development Institute of London England the chairman was John Holmes president of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. The conference is jointly sponsored by the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the CBC and will continue for the next week. It's being held at the YMCA as leadership and Conference Center at Geneva park on Lake Ontario. Tomorrow the discussion will turn to a consideration of isms and attitudes in the new Europe. The speaker for the broadcast will be our A.M. our own director of studies at local pride days looked at youth in Paris. William dbl Jr. senior research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York will be the commentator and the chairman will be Kurt Swinton president of Encyclopaedia Britannica of Canada. The conference will be the basis of a book to be published this autumn. Its price will be $2 and it may be ordered from University of Toronto press Toronto five Ontario. Anyone wishing to attend a single session at
good teaching may purchase tickets at the door. Meetings begin at 7:45 each evening through August 3rd technical operation for these broadcasts is by John Skelton. Bob Wilson's speaking this is CBC Radio the Trans Canada network.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
31st Couchiching conference
A new Europe: A British view
Producing Organization
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-bv79x331).
Episode Description
William D. Clark gives a British view of European progress since World War II and an examination of the reasons behind contemporary British negotiations. John Holmes introduces Clark and offers a Canadian perspective on developments in Europe.
Series Description
The 31st edition of an annual meeting held in Geneva Park, Ontario. Political matters are discussed, with an emphasis on how they relate to Canada. This edition focuses on "The New Europe."
Global Affairs
Public Affairs
Great Britain.
Media type
Host: Wilson, Bob
Producing Organization: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Producing Organization: Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Speaker: Clark, William D.
Speaker: Holmes, John
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 62-ex2-1 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “31st Couchiching conference; A new Europe: A British view,” 1962-07-28, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 19, 2024,
MLA: “31st Couchiching conference; A new Europe: A British view.” 1962-07-28. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 19, 2024. <>.
APA: 31st Couchiching conference; A new Europe: A British view. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from