§ 45. Earl Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the participation of British and British Commonwealth Forces in the Korean campaign, he will, with due regard to military security and after consultation with the Government of the United States of America, issue periodical communiquéóes on the progress of operations for the information of this House and the public.
§ The Prime MinisterAs regards the day-to-day reporting of military operations in Korea, communiquéóes are being issued from Tokyo, and I should not normally wish to amplify these as they will, I am sure, appear in the Press. In accordance with the Security Council resolution, the United States Government have appointed a Commander-in-Chief of the Forces engaged in the Korean operations. These include Commonwealth units. I will, of course, inform the House of any major developments in connection with the employment of United Kingdom or other Commonwealth Forces in response to the Security Council resolution, but should prefer not to make such announcements at regular intervals.
§ Earl WintertonCould the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to this fact —that it might be brought home to the public that an American Force, greatly outnumbered and greatly outgunned, fighting with the accustomed gallantry of the American and British Armies in such a situation, supported by Commonwealth and British naval and Air Forces, is the only effective opposition to Communist aggression in Korea at present? The public have got somewhat confused in their minds in this matter. In other words, collective security resides in those Forces.
§ The Prime MinisterI thought most people appreciated that. I am sure the noble Lord's question will bring it home.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIs the Prime Minister aware that in communiquéóes from Tokyo there are reports of atrocities committed against American soldiers by Northern Koreans? Is he aware there are also very substantial reports of atrocities committed by South Koreans against North Koreans? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Will he see that there is some objectivity in these reports?
§ The Prime MinisterThat seems to me to be entirely irrelevant to the Question.
§ 49. Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to safeguard British Forces operating in the Far East from the publication of information which, on grounds of security, is detrimental to the Korean operations, particularly in view of the request made by General MacArthur, the United Nations Commander-in-Chief, to Press correspondents in this connection.
§ The Prime MinisterI have seen the request referred to in this Question. I am confident that the Press in this country will comply with the spirit of General MacArthur's request, and will exercise great discretion in regard to the publication of any information which might affect adversely the Korean operations or the security of the Forces which may be engaged in them. The Service Departments will be glad to give guidance to the Press in this respect on any specific matter which may be referred to them.
§ Mr. GreenwoodWould the Prime Minister emphasise to our American Allies that this country will not tolerate any attempt to impose censorship of opinion, however repugnant that opinion may be to ourselves or America?
§ The Prime MinisterThat does not seem to arise from this Question.
§ Brigadier HeadWould the Prime Minister consider giving facilities for the Service Departments to give a general briefing from time to time, to the Press so that they are in the picture on everything and do not innocently commit any indiscretions likely to affect future operations?
§ The Prime MinisterCertainly. I think there is pretty close liaison between the Press and the Service Departments, and I am quite sure that guidance will be given.
§ Mr. NallyIs my right hon. Friend aware that General MacArthur is in the unique position of having at one and the same time two tasks—that of commanding the United Nations Forces in Korea, and at the same time of being responsible for a good deal of civil and economic administration in the Far East? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that a number of war correspondents are rather afraid that there is a slight tendency on the part of this brilliant commander to confuse civil and economic censorship with censorship on military and associated operations?
§ Earl WintertonOn a point of order. Is the Prime Minister responsible for what General MacArthur does? If that is not so, is the hon. Gentleman's Question in order?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs far as I know, the Prime Minister has no responsibility whatever for General MacArthur.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesFurther to that point of order. Could you give us any guidance, Sir, as to the responsible Minister to whom we may address Questions on hostilities in Korea? If the Prime Minister has no responsibility for General MacArthur, who has?
§ Mr. SpeakerProbably one of our Service Departments. They are concerned there.
§ Mr. PatonFurther to that point of order. In your reply, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) about his reference to General MacArthur in his civilian and economic capacity, and as the representative of the Allied Powers of which the United Kingdom is one, surely a responsible Minister has a responsibility to this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerGeneral MacArthur is at the moment Commander-in-Chief of our Allied Forces, and, therefore, we should be careful in this matter.
§ Mr. KeelingMay I ask whether the publication in the British Press of the line to which the Americans were going to retire, which had not been announced by American headquarters, might not have been detrimental?
§ The Prime MinisterI should rather like notice of any specific question. I am not sure to what the hon. Member is referring.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. SnowOn a point of order. In respect of a question from the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) today, at Question Time, I understood you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that in the matter of the conduct of hostilities in Korea, if the name of General MacArthur arose, it would not be proper to answer a Question in this House. If I understand that correctly, what is the position if, as I understand to be the case, the troops in Korea are now under the United Nations flag? Would not Questions on that subject then be the responsibility, not of the Secretaries of State for the Service Departments, but of the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. SpeakerI should have thought it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rather than of the Prime Minister. Questions about the United Nations are generally put to the Foreign Secretary. Anyhow. my protest was made because, after all. General MacArthur is the Commander-in-Chief, and one does not want always to be criticising and stabbing in the back the Commander-in-Chief of the American Forces and our own Forces.
§ Earl WintertonMay I, in justice to myself, Sir, point out that my point of order related to a question which went 1544 much further than criticizing GeneralMacArthuras Commander-in-Chief? It referred to his administration. It has been constantly laid down that we cannot criticise the administration of anyone not responsible to a Minister.
§ Mr. PatonFurther to that point of order. On the question which has just been raised by the noble Lord, is it not the case that General MacArthur, in his administration in Japan, is the servant of the whole of the Allied Powers, of which the United Kingdom is one, so that, in all his activities within Japan, he is answerable to us, as one of the Allied Powers, through Questions addressed to the Foreign Secretary?
§ Mr. SpeakerI quite understand that point. It is perfectly correct. It is possible to put these Questions. I only said that I thought that in time of war, if General MacArthur is Commander-in-Chief, it is highly undesirable to stab him, as Commander-in-Chief, in the back.
§ Mr. NallyMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, whether you would be kind enough to examine the complications which are bound to arise? There were two Questions on the Order Paper today neither of which had to do so much with the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea, as with certain organisation and proceedings in Tokyo, for which General MacArthur also has responsibility in another capacity. May I respectfully ask you whether you would be prepared to consider certain Questions about which we have had some difficulty, and, at such time as may suit your convenience, give us some guidance upon what you would conceive to be proper and right in relation to the situation embodied in the two Questions, on which there was a difference of opinion?
§ Mr. EdenMay I suggest that the House would think it reasonable, in a time of delicacy like this, that you, Sir, might perhaps ask to see the Questions on the Paper to consider them more seriously—if they concern the Allied Commander—than can possibly be done when they are chance questions and answers?
§ Mr. SnowI had no intention of criticising the military capacity of General MacArthur, for whom I have a profound respect in that capacity. But one can 1545 distinguish between military responsibility and responsibility to us as one of the United Nations.
§ Mr. SpeakerI quite agree that there are two sides to the question. One is the military one, and one is the aspect that General MacArthur is, as it were, our representative in Japan. One has to be very careful. I was thinking entirely of his military responsibility as Commanderin-Chief. I daresay we can think about that further.