HC Deb 03 February 1953 vol 510 cc1672-8
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden)

The President of the United States announced yesterday in a State of the Union message that the United States 7th Fleet, which has been enforcing the neutralisation of Formosa since the outbreak of the Korean war, would no longer be employed to prevent Chinese Nationalist attacks against the mainland of China. Her Majesty's Government were informed in advance by the United States Government and at once made known their concern at this decision which, they feared, would have unfortunate political repercussions without compensating military advantages. This continues to be the view of Her Majesty's Government.

It is important, however, to keep this matter in its correct proportion and perspective. The neutralisation of Formosa was a unilateral act of policy, with which Her Majesty's Government were not associated. It was made before Chinese intervention in the Korean war. President Eisenhower has now decided that "there is no longer any logic or sense in a condition that required the United States Navy to assume defensive responsibilities on behalf of the Chinese Communists." He has therefore issued instructions "that the 7th Fleet no longer be employed to shield Communist China." "This order," Mr. Eisenhower went on to say, "implies no aggressive intent on our part."

The step announced is in consequence a unilateral decision by the new United States Administration to amend a unilateral decision taken by their predecessors.

Mr. H. Morrison

The House will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and I am sure we are all glad to know that Her Majesty's Government have caused the United States Government to be informed—I gather before President Eisenhower's statement —that we did not agree with the proposed action of the United States in withdrawing the 7th Fleet in the circumstances indicated in President Eisenhower's Message to Congress. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would state when the representations of our Government were made to the United States Administration, and through what channel they were made.

Mr. Eden

We were told of the United States Government's decision on 30th January and we made our views known to them on the following day. But I think it only fair to add that these topics had been discussed with the previous United States Administration and with the new Administration, that is to say, the neutralisation policy in general, and certain infringements which seemed to be taking place. As long ago as last November we asked whether the policy had been modified in any way. We were told that the incidents which had taken place were not regarded as an infringement of that policy. We followed that up on 28th January, after the change of Government. We again drew attention to these raids, which we said seemed in our view inconsistently with the neutralisation policy, and made certain further comments on the matter.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated—I did ask him—through what channels the latest representations were made. I think this latest matter is more important than the incidental minor raids that happened earlier on.

Mr. Eden

There were continuing discussions on the same topic. I think the last representations were made in Washington and not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] Of course by Her Majesty's Ambassador.

Mr. Morrison

I asked that question, not because I was alleging anything— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Really, it is rather foolish for hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt that attitude before they are in any trouble. But there have been reports that the representations were made by a humble officer, and I am glad to know it was done by the Ambassador personally.

Mr. Eden

No. I am sorry, I cannot give an absolute assurance that they were given—[Interruption.] I really think the House is a little hasty. What we did was to send on the next day instructions that representations should at once be made in Washington. I cannot charge my memory as to whether they were in fact made by the Ambassador himself or by a member of his staff. What I do know is that they were at once made by a representative of Her Majesty's Embassy. Let me add that I do not grade the importance of the representations by the particular officer who happens to deliver them.

Mr. Morrison

I wanted the information and I thought the earlier statement was perhaps a little misleading. I think it is far better if a matter of this great importance is dealt with personally by the Ambassador, the highest representative we have there. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the Foreign Secretary's statement, he can now give us, or will give us, any information as to what took place between him and President Truman and President-designate Eisenhower, as they were then, with regard to this matter, if anything, on the occasion of his recent visit to the United States?

Mr. Eden

I checked as rapidly as I could which officer delivered our representations. As I understand it, our Ambassador himself delivered the representations on 28th January, and as to the representations which were hurriedly delivered on 30th January, I am instructed that they were delivered by a member of the staff. I do not know which particular one it was, but I will find out and inform the House.

Mr. Morrison

It surely is permissible, on a matter which is very relevant, that we should ask the Prime Minister what happened, if anything, in connection with this matter on the occasion of his recent visit to the United States, and that he should reply?

Mr. Eden

May I be allowed to add one word? [HON. MEMBERS: "No. The Prime Minister."] I was asked a question and I wanted to answer the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman because I have further information on it. Mr. Dulles was not in Washington on the day of the second representations, and that is why, in addition to the representations delivered by a junior officer, a telegram was at once sent, quite rightly, by our Ambassador to catch Mr. Dulles where he was in Europe.

The Prime Minister

On the subject of my private and confidential conversations with various important people in the United States, I have nothing to add to my statement yesterday. I feel at the same time that I ought to say that I am in full accord with the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order.

The Prime Minister

Address the Chair.

Mr. Bevan

Keep your temper, please. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has on several occasions refused to tell the House the purport of his conversations with President Truman, as he was then, and the President-elect, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's visit was a State visit?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. It may be a matter of investigation for the House, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Bevan

rose—

Sir T. Moore

I have a real point of order to raise.

Mr. Speaker

There cannot be two points of order at the same time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) thinks, no doubt, that he has a real point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is convinced he has, too.

Mr. Bevan

May I ask, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has been treating this as an entirely private matter, whether his visit was financed out of public funds?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order for me. I have nothing to do with that.

Sir T. Moore

This is a real point of order. May I ask whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to tell you, Mr. Speaker, to keep your temper?

Mr. Speaker

I have no recollection of the right hon. Gentleman addressing me or of his using such language to me, nor have I of my own conduct any remembrance which would justify such a remark.

Mr. Strachey

Will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister now take the opportunity of assuring Mr. Dulles that in their opinion and in the opinion of this House, Chiang Kai-shek's troops on the mainland of China will be an incomparably greater political liability than they can ever be a military asset to anyone?

Mr. Donnelly

Reverting to the question of the representations which were made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, may I draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to a statement in this morning's "Manchester Guardian," which quotes a statement by the spokesman of the State Department in Washington, Mr. McDermott, in which he said he was not aware of any representations which had been made on behalf of any of the Governments concerned, and what observations has the right hon. Gentleman to make on such an humiliating position?

Mr. Eden

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman thinks is in an humiliating position, but I have given the House an account of the representations that have been made, and it is, of course, for other people to decide how much they tell within a Department of these representations.

Mr. Paget

Will the Foreign Secretary agree that the spread of the war into the Formosan Channel and on to the Chinese coast endangers Hong Kong and injures British interests? Will he also agree that we have a Fleet to maintain British interests, and if the American 7th Fleet is not going to keep the peace there, can he consider ordering our Fleet to do so?

Mr. Eden

What we have said before the event expressed in measured terms the view of Her Majesty's Government and most of the House. Since this matter is of not inconsiderable delicacy between us and our principal Ally, whose Secretary of State is arriving this afternoon, I should have hoped that the House would have shown some reticence in further comment on the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the most regrettable features of this decision is the damage that it may do to Anglo-American relations, and will he bring this danger to the attention of Mr. Dulles? Further, will he agree that, whatever Her Majesty's Government have submitted or will submit to the United States Government, in view of the danger of the spread of the fighting which may result from this decision, it would have been more appropriate to have brought it first before the United Nations?

Mr. Eden

We did, in fact, in the representations which were made on 28th January by Her Majesty's Ambassador. state the fact that the ending of the neutralisation policy would have important political repercussions. We asked that we should be fully consulted in advance, and we hoped the United States Government had no intention of allowing their policy to go by default. These were the representations made on 28th January.

What we do not yet know, and I think we should be wise to suspend judgment about it, is what action, if any, will follow from this decision. There have been small raids taking place already, as I informed the House, since last November. Whether or not there is to be any departure from that policy remains to be seen. That is clearly a matter which we shall discuss, and I think we can most usefully and most quietly discuss these things if we do not further raise the temperature on the matter at this stage.

Mr. Bevan

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that hon. Members in all parts of the House have the most grave responsibilities in this matter? Hon. Members will find that their constituents may not take the view that they do about it. When he meets Mr. Dulles, will the right hon. Gentleman ask him this question, for the information subsequently of the House? It is well known that Chiang Kai-shek's troops on Formosa have been armed by the United States. Now that the Fleet has been withdrawn, and therefore raids will be made by Chiang Kai-shek's troops on the Chinese mainland, is it the intention of the United States to continue to supply arms to Chiang Kai-shek? If that be so, then a very grave situation indeed will have arisen, because not only will Chiang Kai-shek have been armed in the past by the United States, but he may also be armed by the United States in the future, and nothing can do more damage to Anglo-American relations than that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Might I again repeat the suggestion which was made by the Foreign Secretary, with a very great sense of responsibility, that, in view of the fact that the American Secretary of State is to meet our Foreign Secretary this afternoon, any attempt to dictate in advance the subjects of their conversations would be highly injudicious and that nothing could do more harm than to pursue this discussion today?

Mr. Wyatt

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is not in order for us to have addressed to us homilies of this sort which are not questions?

Mr. Eden

I should have thought that the statement which I gave the House showing the representations which we made in advance of events made quite plain what were the views of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. It is on the basis of what we have said that I shall, naturally, have discussions with the Secretary of State in the course of the next few days, but I would ask the House to bear in mind that we have no information whatever as to what intention may follow from this action, and I do not think we ought to take extremist views about this until we have evidence on which to base them.

Mr. H. Morrison

May I ask the Leader of the House to take note that we would wish to have a day's debate on this matter and on the Far Eastern situation in general? We suggest that it is desirable for the House on both sides to express its views about this important development. We should like him to arrange, if he would be good enough to do so, for us to have the debate on Thursday of this week in order that the House may be in a position to express its views.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Of course, if the House is prepared to see the business rearranged, the Government would not stand in the way of that suggestion for an early debate. I think the actual method might well be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would remind hon. Members that there is no Question before the House.