KOREA (38TH PARALLEL) (Hansard, 26 February 1951)

§ 51. Mr. Langford-Holt
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what limitations have been placed on the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations in Korea, with regard to the crossing of the 38th Parallel by his troops and their possible advance northward.

§ Mr. Ernest Davies
I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to similar Questions on 21st and 22nd February.

§ Mr. Langford-Holt
Is the Under-Secretary aware that I am not trying to raise the question of the merits of any particular policy? What I am asking is that the intention of His Majesty's Government and of the United Nations with regard to this matter be made clear now rather than later.

§ Mr. Davies
I think our position has been made quite clear in the replies I gave to Questions the other day.

§ Mr. Wyatt
Does my hon. Friend realise that millions of people in this country feel that it is vitally important that we should get this matter straightened out? It is not good enough to get a fobbing-off answer to a Question by reference to another answer given some days ago.

§ Mr. Davies
On 21st February I stated: For the sake of clarity, I would point out that the present position is this. It has been made clear that where, for local tactical reasons, it may be necessary to make small incursions over the 38th Parallel, that would be considered a military matter, but that any substantial crossing of the Parallel would be a political matter on which consultation would take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1282–3.] That, I think, clarifies the position sufficiently.

§ Mr. Eden
Have the consultations mentioned in that answer taken place? Has there been an agreement?

§ Mr. Davies
In our consultations with the United States we have found a large measure of agreement.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
If the crossing of the Parallel on a large scale as a matter of policy is a political question, with political consequences, is it quite accurate to say it is a matter for consultation between this country and the United States? Should the matter not be referred back to the General Assembly of the United Nations for a decision to be taken?

§ Mr. Davies
I said that consultations would take place with those countries which are contributing to the Forces in Korea.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
Does this policy of renewed consultation involve any change or any ceasing of the effect of the existing decision of the United Nations?

§ Mr. Eden
Could we know a little more clearly where we are? We were told on 21st February that there were to be consultations with the United States. Have those consultations been complete, have they ended in agreement, and, in consequence, have they been extended to cover agreements with the other Powers whose consent to that policy is necessary?

§ Mr. Davies
We have been consulting with the United States about this matter. Such consultations over matters in Korea are continuous, and we are satisfied that on this particular issue we have reached a very large measure of agreement with the United States. It has further been agreed that where there is a possibility of the 38th Parallel being crossed there will be consultation with the other countries concerned.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Since the matter, admittedly, is one of politics and not merely of military tactics or military strategy, why should consultations about this matter of politics be limited to those nations who happen to have made a military contribution? Why should it not be a policy matter to be considered by the United Nations, from which this action drew its original authority?

§ Mr. Davies
The United Nations have already taken their decision, as was embodied in the resolution which was passed in October last. The matter which is now under consultation is the immediate action which would be taken in the event of the military situation demanding that further decisions be made.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss
While I do not question in any way the propriety of the conversations between this country and the United States, is it not a fact that the resolution of 7th October, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was a resolution passed by 47 votes to five and dealt with action to be taken throughout Korea? Is it not, therefore, necessary that if any modification is being discussed it should again be brought before the United Nations?

§ Mr. Davies
Not entirely. The resolution of October, 1950, gave authority to cross the 38th Parallel for the sake of the unification of Korea, but it did not give instructions that that should take place.