§ 9. Mr. Hector Hughes
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take further action to provide for the representation of the Central Peoples' Government of China in the United Nations organisation.
§ The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)
I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to similar Questions asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 18th June.
§ Mr. Hughes
Does the Minister not realise that the time has gone for relying upon technicalities in this fundamental matter which affects the lives of millions of people; and will he undertake to do everything possible to see that as many nations as possible are represented in the United Nations organisation?
§ Mr. Speaker
I understood there was a reference in the answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
§ Mr. Hughes
On a point of order. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, has misrepresented me in his answer. He replied that I had said or implied that the war in Korea was a technicality. I did not mention the war in Korea. Far be it from me to suggest that it is a technicality.
§ Mr. S. Silverman
Will the Minister bear in mind that since the answer to which he referred only made the point that nothing could be done until the war in Korea was over and implied that something might be done when that occurred, many Members of the House of Commons and the other place have had the advantage of hearing a speech by the American Secretary of State, in which he said that any discussion of the recognition of the Chinese Government or its admission to the United Nations was purely academic, and that he could see no conditions in the foreseeable circumstances in which it would be anything else?
§ Mr. Lloyd
That statement of policy seems to support what I said earlier. I certainly did not mean to suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was suggesting that the operations in Korea were a technicality. What he did suggest was that the present situation was a technical situation causing delay in considering this matter, and what I am pointing out is that the condition precedent to making progress over this matter, which is a difficult matter, is an armistice in Korea.
§ Mr. Mott-Radclyffe
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the presence in the field of nearly one million Chinese troops in action against United Nations' Forces is hardly a very good qualification for representation at U.N.O.?
§ Mr. Silverman
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that there is a most fundamental difference 405 between saying that this is a matter to which we could agree once the present hostilities were over and saying that this is a matter to which we could not agree in any foreseeable circumstances; and in view of that deep discrepancy between the policy of this country and the policy of the United States on this most important matter, will he not consider whether any step ought not to be taken in good time to reconcile those differences, or, if not, to put our point of view to the opinon of the other members of the United Nations, or to the International Court?
§ Mr. Lloyd
I think our view is perfectly clear, and it is the view of the Government which preceded us. There is a difference of view on the part of other Governments, but it seems to me that it is hypothetical until we get the essential condition precedent fulfilled, which is an armistice in Korea.