§ 6.33 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to an Answer given by them in this House on May 8. (1) what precisely is the objective of the United Nations which is to be achieved before the termination of the embargo on strategic materials to China which was adopted in May, 1951, to provide additional measures to meet aggression in Korea; and (2) at what date the objective was discussed and defined at a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations.]
544THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)My Lords, the objectives of the United Nations in Korea, as last defined and reaffirmed in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on November 29, 1957, and previously established in resolutions of January 11, 1957, November 29, 1955. December 11, 1954, August 28, 1953, and October 7, 1950, are to bring about by peaceful means the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic Korea under a representative form of government, and the full restoration of peace and security in the area. In view of the nature of the noble Viscount's Question, I feel that I should remind your Lordships that the objectives already mentioned are not the sole factors involved. The question of control of strategic exports to China is subject to the same considerations of security as apply to exports to the Soviet Union.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl. Is it not the case that we are acting in relation to the embargo under the original United Nations resolution of May 19, 1951, and is it not clear that there is a vital distinction between the early part of that resolution recommending the embargo, and the appendage, which reaffirms the achievement of United Nations objectives by peaceful means after the fighting is over? Is it not, therefore, equally clear that by importing this general statement of ultimate objectives into the embargo question the Government are really turning the embargo—which was imposed to limit a temporary military danger—into a bargaining counter in the interplay of present-day opposing policies in the Far East?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, the noble Viscount asked me two questions: what precisely is the objective of the United Nations which is to be achieved, and at what date the objective was discussed and defined at a meeting of the General Assembly. I have answered both those questions, and I really cannot see how the noble Viscount's supplementary question has anything to do with either.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask whether it is a fact that some of the 545 contracts, in regard to which British producers would be very glad to tender and supply the result to China, are being obtained by powers like West Germany and other powers in the world, leaving us, therefore, in a very much worse position than would otherwise be the case if some reasonable amendment could be found for this resolution of the United Nations?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully realise that there are possibly cases where orders may be going elsewhere which would otherwise be coming to us. As the noble Viscount knows full well, the question of these controls is at present being considered by the Committee in Paris.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I ask whether until the ultimate aims have been achieved it is proposed to maintain the embargo and to continue the exclusion of Communist China from the United Nations?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, the noble Earl has been asked about once a fortnight for over six months and has told us they are actively considering this matter in Paris. We have asked more than once whether anyone has proposed that the embargo should be lifted. Has he got an answer, or can he promise an answer?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDI think I answered the noble Viscount last time on that matter. If he cannot take "No" for an answer—
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI do not know what the noble Earl's answer, even with his gestures, really means. Does he mean he will not answer the question or will not propose that the embargo be lifted? He said, "No." What does that mean?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, this time I certainly mean "No," in this respect: that I will not anticipate what will come out of the meetings in Paris.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, can the noble Earl say when the deliberations are coming to an end and when we shall have a result?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I think I told the noble Viscount last time I hoped it would be before the middle of this year.