TIBET (Hansard, 20 November 1950)

§ 50. Sir John Mellor
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make about the situation in Tibet.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies)
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have no representative in Tibet and, therefore, no direct source of information about the situation there. We have, however, been informed by the Government of India that they have received reports from their agent in Lhasa which show that the Chinese invasion has not made as much progress as was at first believed. There have been rumours that the Chinese had entered Lhasa, that resistance had ceased and that peace negotiations were in progress. These rumours are quite without foundation.

§ Mr. Blackburn
Will the hon. Member give an undertaking that, while this unprovoked and naked aggression is continuing against Tibet, we shall not enter into negotiations with the Chinese Communist Government, which is responsible for that invasion?

§ Mr. Davies
No. Sir; I cannot give an assurance to that effect.

§ Mr. Eden
Does the Government contemplate seeking any further information or any joint action or representation with the Government of India, or anything of the kind?

§ Mr. Davies
We are in consultation with the Government of India on this matter and, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a member of the United Nations is endeavouring to put it on the agenda of the General Assembly. Discussions on the matter are taking place in New York at the present time.

§ Mr. Eden
Will the Foreign Office try to give us further information as soon as they can, because this is a matter of great gravity even if we have not a representative in Lhasa?

§ Mr. Davies
Certainly.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Is the reason why we have no representative in Tibet the fact that we have never recognised Tibet as an independent sovereign country?

§ Mr. Davies
Tibet is considered by us an autonomous country under Chinese suzerainty.

§ Mr. Silverman
That does not really answer the question. There are a great many autonomous territories which are not sovereign States. Is this one of them?

§ Mr. Blackburn
In view of the grave and urgent issue involved here, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

§ 61. Mr. Donner
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the destruction of the autonomy of Tibet and the subordination of Tibetan foreign policy to that of Peking, following the collapse of Tibetan resistance to Chinese invasion, His Majesty's Government will now declare their opposition to the inclusion of Communist China on the Security Council of the United Nations.

§ Mr. Ernest Davies
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Donner
Is it proposed to continue to put up with this violation and to encourage Communism everywhere?

§ Mr. Davies
No, Sir, but we consider that the Chinese Government is the actual Government of China at the present time and all our actions are governed by that.

§ Mr. Anthony Nutting
Will not the hon. Gentleman take every opportunity of impressing upon the Chinese Government that acts of naked aggression of this character cannot but influence the opinion and attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the participation of the Chinese Government in the future activities of the Security Council?

§ Mr. Davies
The attitude of the free world towards naked aggression is well-known, and has been demonstrated recently in the United Nations.
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

§ 69. Lieut.-Colonel Sir THOMAS MOORE
—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what suggestion he proposes to submit to the Security Council of the United Nations to deal with the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese Communist forces.

§ Sir T. Moore
On a point of order. In Question No. 69, Sir, reference is made to a matter on which we should like an answer. It occurred to me that the Under-Secretary of State would like to answer it before we proceed further.