HC Deb 09 December 1929 vol 233 cc10-1
13. Sir KINGSLEY WOOD

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to the present position in Manchuria; and what replies have been received in. response to the representations made to the Chinese and Soviet Governments calling their attention to their obligations under the Kellogg Pact?

18. Captain EDEN

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Soviet Government or the Chinese Government to his joint representations with the Government of the United States of America in respect of the situation in Manchuria?

26. Captain MACDONALD

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received from the Soviet Government to the representations made to it respecting its obligations under the Kellogg Pact in connection with affairs in Manchuria; if so, whether he can state its nature; and whether the Powers concerned intend to make further representations on the matter?

34. Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply the Government has received to their message to the Soviet Republic as to that Government's breach of the terms of the Kellogg Pact with regard to the strained relations existing between Russia and China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON

I have received the text of the reply of the Chinese Government and a telegraphic summary of that of the Soviet Government. As they have already appeared in the Press, I will, with the hon. Members' permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Chinese and Soviet authorities are now carrying on negotiations, and I do not, as at present advised, contemplate taking any further steps. I have no knowledge of the attitude of other Powers in this respect. There has been no recrudescence of military activity.

Sir K. WOOD

Is it a fact that the Soviet Government, in their reply, stated that they regarded the representations that had been made to them as unjustifiable interference, and that it was an unfriendly act on the part of our Government?

Mr. HENDERSON

Yes, but I do not think that arises out of this question.

Sir F. HALL

Is that the sort of reply the right hon. Gentleman would expect from such a friendly nation?

Following is the text:

"(a) Chinese Government's Reply. Throughout the present dispute with Soviet Russia the National Government has maintained a peaceful attitude and refrained from adopting any hostile military actions except for purpose of self-protection as may he attested by established facts. Being a co-signatory of the Treaty for the renunciation of war the National Government circularised other signatories of aforesaid Treaty on 20th August, 1929, declaring that China would, apart from adopting measures for self-protection in defence of her territorial sovereignty against any external invasions, faithfully abide by Article 2 of the aforesaid Treaty for the solution of international disputes by pacific means, and that she was ready at any time within reasonable limits to negotiate with the Soviet Government for the settlement of the present dispute. Such declaration is in complete harmony with the intent of the note under reply. The National Government has always reposed implicit confidence in aforesaid Treaty and desisted from acting in any way contrary to its spirit. It will continue to adhere to its reiterated policy. (Signed) CHENG-TING T. WANG, Nanking, 4th December, 1929. "(b) Summary of Soviet Government's Reply. The reply to the British Government emphasizes the peaceful policy of the Soviet and the provocative policy of Nanking, especially by its attack on the Eastern Chinese Railway and on the Russian frontier. The measures taken by the Red Army are entirely in self-defence and in no way are a breach of the Paris agreement. The reply states that the British application took place at the moment when the Soviet and Mukden Governments had already agreed upon a number of conditions and are carrying on direct negotiations which open the way to the possibility of a speedy solution of the conflict. This application must be regarded as an unjustifiable pressure on negotiations and can in no way he regarded as a friendly act. The reply disputes the right of any one state or group of states to act as the guardian of the Pact and states that the conflict with China can only be solved by direct negotiations on conditions with which China is acquainted and Mukden already has accepted and that no interference in the negotiations or conflict can be allowed.
Forward to