Truce Talks

HC Deb 19 November 1951 vol 494 cc25-9

52. Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the information he has received from the United Nations Organisation as to the points of agreement that have been reached in the truce talks now proceeding between the United Nations delegation and the North Korean and Chinese forces and of the points of disagreement that are still under discussion; and what the prospects are of complete agreement being reached at an early date.

55. Mrs. Barbara Castle

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the cease-fire talks in Korea.

56. Mr. Sydney Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement about the progress of the discussions for a cease-fire in Korea; whether an armistice line has been agreed; and what now prevents the parties from reaching an agreement.

Mr. Eden

I would ask hon. Members to await the speech which I hope to be able to make shortly, which will cover the points raised in these Questions.

Mr. Hector Hughes

As I have not an opportunity of reading the answer which the Secretary of State has just given, may I ask him whether he is satisfied with the personnel of the negotiating teams, and whether peace would not be better achieved by civilians? Will he take steps to appoint a British representative to the negotiations which are taking place in Korea?

Mr. Eden

I think it would be better to await the answer which I am going to try to give to this somewhat complicated matter.

Mrs. Castle

In view of the fact that it may not be possible to interrogate right hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate this afternoon, and in view of the wide public anxiety on this question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all responsible correspondents in Korea agree that the conduct of these negotiations has been most disquieting, and that, in the words of the "Manchester Guardian," the demands of the negotiators seem to have changed with bewildering frequency, and there is a suspicion growing that our allies do not desire a cease-fire? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is high time the British were associated directly with these negotiations?

Mr. Eden

The hon. Lady knows quite well that I have nothing to do with who was and who was not associated with these negotiations when they began. I have been at great pains to try to follow these extremely complicated negotiations. I have a statement with which I am afraid I shall have to weary the House at some length in order to try to explain how, as I see it, the position now stands. I do not think the hon. Lady's imputations about the wishes of one of the Powers concerned are really fair. When she has heard my account, which I have reason to believe is an accurate one, I will gladly submit to any catechism.

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order. I am at a loss to understand the procedure which is being adopted today by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he propose to make that statement at the end of Questions, or does he intend to incorporate it in his speech?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that these questions would be considered in the course of the debate, in the speech which he is to make on that occasion; and that being the case, perhaps we could pass on to other Questions. Mr. Robson Brown.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. My Question, No. 56, was answered together with Nos. 52 and 55. While I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to anticipate his speech, I should like to ask a supplementary question. May I do so?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid I must adhere to what I said—that we ought to go on. Mr. Robson Brown.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. Has it not been the invariable custom in this House from time immemorial, when Questions which have been duly put upon the Order Paper are answered by the permission of the House and by the permission of the hon. Gentleman concerned together with other Questions, that the Member who has put his Question down and had it answered in that way is entitled to put at any rate one supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

I quite admit that that is the general custom, but as long as I have been a Member of this House it has been considered customary that when a speech is to be made dealing with the precise topic which forms the subject Matter of the Questions, it is wrong to anticipate that by too much questioning in advance. It is on that ground, and not on any failure of the claim of the hon. Gentleman in putting down his Question, that I based my decision in this case.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of order. With the greatest respect in the world, I find it difficult to understand why those considerations did not apply equally to every other supplementary question asked. I submit that it is unfair that I should be discriminated against by having considerations applied to supplementary questions which I propose to ask which were not applied to the supplementary questions asked by other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is under any sense of unfairness. In order to clear this matter up, and in order that there should be no ill feeling, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to ask his supplementary question.

Mr. Silverman

I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, without anticipating what must necessarily be a long and complicated account of the negotiations in this field, he could say if it is a fact that an armistice line agreeable on military grounds to both sides has been agreed; and whether there is any sense in continuing the fighting after that agreement has been reached?

Mr. Eden

I cannot answer that. That is one of the difficulties of the situation. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not only a question of the line on which fighting may cease. It is also a question of other armistice conditions, such as the release of prisoners, which have to be taken into account. They are all one. I think the situation looks a little better now than it did a few hours ago. That is why I have been trying the best I can to avoid exacerbating the atmosphere.

57. Mr. Emrys Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far he supports Mr. Vyshinsky's official proposal to end hostilities in Korea by the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the 38th Parallel within 10 days and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea within three months of the cease-fire.

Mr. Eden

Mr. Vyshinsky's proposals raise questions of a kind which can only be discussed after the conclusion of a military armistice. Decisions on the with- drawal of foreign forces have been excluded by mutual agreement from the present armistice talks. His Majesty's Government do not therefore agree with Mr. Vyshinsky's proposals but will be prepared to discuss the question of the withdrawal of foreign forces at the appropriate time.

Mr. Hughes

While I appreciate the Foreign Secretary's statement that the outlook is better, and while I thank him in advance for any contribution which he is making to that, may I ask him this question: Is he aware that a British officer has written in the current number of the American Paper "News Week" saying that the question which soldiers are asking is, "Why the hell are we fighting when they are talking peace"? Is he aware that that is the question asked by all soldiers and civilians of all countries engaged?

Mr. Eden

The hon. Gentleman knows that armistice negotiations are often going on when soldiers are still fighting. That has often been the experience just before armistice agreements have been finally concluded. There is nothing odd in this.