HC Deb 16 February 1953 vol 511 cc875-9
37. Mr. Edelman

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British ships have been intercepted or hindered on their lawful occasions while proceeding to and from China.

42. Mr. A. J. Irvine

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions in the last 18 months there has been interference with British ships engaged in their lawful business in trade conducted by the United Kingdom with Hong Kong and continental China; who have been responsible for such interference; what has been the loss of life involved; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of such interference.

Mr. Eden

Interference from various sources with British ships in the China seas has been attempted on 40 occasions during the last 18 months. None of these incidents has involved vessels trading from the United Kingdom.

On 15 occasions the attackers were not identified and their attempts at interception were evaded. On three occasions the attackers were Chinese pirates. On four occasions the attacks were made by Chinese Communist junks or mainland shore batteries. On 18 occasions the intercepting vessels were identified as Chinese Nationalists, although some of them appeared to have been manned by guerrilla rather than by regular forces. So far as is known, the loss of life in these incidents was two, one at the hands of the Nationalists and one at the hands of the mainland Chinese.

Of the 18 cases of interception by Chinese Nationalists, in four cases the attempted interception was unsuccessful; in five cases the ships were allowed to proceed after having obeyed a signal to stop; in nine cases the ships were detained for periods up to 12 days—four of them having their cargoes confiscated. There was no British interest in these cargoes.

As I made plain on 5th February, Her Majesty's ships have full instructions to protect British merchant ships on their lawful occasions on the high seas. Protests have been made to the Provincial authorities in Formosa in every case where Nationalist responsibility is established or seems probable—including the three cases of piracy since the pirates appeared to be operating from Nationalist-held islands.

Mr. Edelman

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he will bear in mind that these increasing acts of piracy are causing great indignation and anxiety? Will he reaffirm that British ships on their lawful occasions when engaged in trade with China will be promptly and suitably protected?

Mr. Eden

Yes, Sir. I have said that. I had better inquire whether it is increasing—I am not sure—but it has been going on for a very considerable time. As regards the "Rosita," which was a recent important case, the Nationalist authorities have now accepted responsibility and we have instructed Her Majesty's Consul to submit a claim for full compensation.

Mr. Irvine

Are not these British vessels entitled to armed protection? What is the Government's policy in that respect?

Mr. Eden

They are entitled to protection on the high seas, which it is our intention to give them.

Captain Ryder

In those cases where we have made representations to Formosa, would my right hon. Friend say whether any compensation has been paid?

Mr. Eden

The "Rosita" is one of those cases for which they have accepted responsibility. As a result, we are filing a claim for full compensation. Although there have been one or two cases of a similar kind, the House will understand that where the cargo is not British, action cannot be taken in respect of that cargo under international law.

Mr. Foot

When the right hon. Gentleman talks of attacks by Chinese pirates, by Chinese Nationalists, or from the Chinese mainland, is it not a fact that from the point of view of the British Government all those attacks are made by pirates?

Mr. Eden

I do not think that would be the case under international law. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question I will answer it.

Mr. Shepherd

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in any of the instances to which he has referred, the Navy have been able to give assistance to these vessels?

Mr. Eden

Yes, there have been cases. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will give particulars of them.

Mr. Donnelly

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make representations to the British Ambassador in Washington to the effect that the arming of this Nationalist shipping, which is attacking British ships and endangering British lives as a result of the initiative of the American President, is gravely endangering Anglo-American relations?

Mr. Eden

It is fair to say that there have been examples on both sides. This kind of thing in the China Seas has not arisen for the first time in the last 12 months.

40. Mr. S. O. Davies

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation was paid to the owners of the British Merchantman which was stopped by a Chiang Kai-shek warship and taken to a Formosan port, where its cargo of steel was unloaded; and what steps he proposes to take, with a view to preventing a repetition of such acts of piracy.

45. Mr. Foot

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the British tramp steamer "Inchislay" recently stopped by Chinese Nationalist ships and compelled to unload her cargoes at a Chinese Nationalist port.

35. Mr. J. Hudson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no protest was lodged by his Department when Chinese Nationalist ships forced a British freighter into one of the Nationalist ports to unload a cargo of steel.

Mr. Eden

The s.s. "Inchislay" was intercepted by a Nationalist warship on 18th September, 1952, when en route from Shanghai to Wenchow and detained at one of the Nationalist-held islands. She was released on 30th September following representations by Her Majesty's Consul at Tamsui to the Provincial Government of Formosa. Her cargo, which was confiscated, is reported to have been: 250 tons of flour, 60 tons. of cement, 80 tons of gunny sacks, 10 tons of walnuts and 1½ ton of iron plate and pipes. The cargo was neither British-owned nor was its destination British, nor was it British-insured.

Mr. Davies

Are we to understand from that reply that this was not a British ship to begin with? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the warship which was responsible for this act of piracy was one owned by Formosa—or is it a fact that it was owned by another power, the United States?

Mr. Eden

I said it was a British ship. It is on that account that we made immediate representations, and it was released within 10 days. The cargo was not British, so no representations could be made about that. The fact that we have been able to make representations is because we have a Consul in Formosa—a fact to which the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends objected so loudly a short time ago.

Mr. Foot

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement which was alleged to have been made by General Bradley before a Senate Committee in the United States, I believe in reference to this ship? Has he taken steps to inform the United States Government—in the hope that they will also inform General Bradley—that the British Government take a very serious view of these acts of piracy?—because Genera] Bradley appears to take the view that the British Government do not care.

Mr. Eden

I saw a report of the speech; but reports of speeches are not absolutely accurate at all times. I have therefore caused inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's Ambassador as to what General Bradley said.