§ 63. Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Security Council of the United Nations what instructions have been given to the Supreme Commander of the Forces of the United Nations in Korea as to the limits of his advance into North Korea.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesThe objectives of the United Nations in Korea have been set out in resolutions of the Security Council and of the Assembly. The conduct of operations in Korea has been entrusted to the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea, and it is for him to decide how best to employ United Nations Forces in Korea so as to achieve these objectives.
§ Mr. DonnellyIn view of the fact that General MacArthur has overtly disobeyed his Commander-in-Chief over Formosa, and has had to be publicly rebuked for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—what assurance can His Majesty's Government give that there will be no repetition of that kind of thing?
§ Mr. DaviesI cannot possibly accept the statement made by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—but as regards the action taken by General MacArthur, he is acting in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council. At present there is a resolution before the Council which affirms that it is the policy of United Nations to hold the Chinese frontier with Korea inviolate, and that they will protect legitimate Chinese and Korean interests in the frontier zone. In view of that, I do not feel there is any need for further action.
Air Commodore HarveyOn a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, for an hon. Member to make allegations against the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think I have ruled on this before. Where General MacArthur is acting as our servant I think it possible that we may criticise him, but as a servant of United Nations I think we are not in order in doing so.
Air Commodore HarveyThe hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) referred to General MacArthur as being rebuked—[HON. MEMBERS: Of course he was."] There is no proof.
Mr. Leslie HaleWill the Under-Secretary make the position clear? I certainly understood from his first answer that he was saying that no territorial limitation at all was imposed on General MacArthur, and that as Supreme Commander he is given carte blanche to take whatever steps he thinks fit. It is necessary that we should be clear about this.
§ Mr. DaviesNothing that I have said in answer to any Question today could possibly be interpreted in that way. I have endeavoured to make clear that General MacArthur is acting in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council.
§ Mr. BlackburnIn view of the very remarkable successes which General MacArthur has achieved, would not it be best to leave this matter to his discretion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and not to give the impression, as some Left-wing Members of the Labour Party are doing, that we are desperately anxious to appease the Communist régime?