§ 6. Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he had with other United Nations Powers regarding and prior to the presentation to the North Korean and Chinese negotiators at Panmunjom of the latest United Nations proposals concerning Chinese and North Korean prisoners of war.
§ Mr. NuttingI would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the reply which the Prime Minister will give to Questions Nos. 46 and 50.
§ Mr. DonnellyOn a point of order. This difficulty has arisen in the past. Such questions as this of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), put down to the Foreign Secretary, are referred upwards to the Prime Minister, and Questions addressed to the Prime Minister are referred downwards to the Foreign Secretary. Could not something be done about it Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. NuttingIf the hon. Gentleman had consulted his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) before he rose on this point of order he would have learned that I had taken an opportunity to do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy to inform him that I was going to refer him to an answer by the Prime Minister.
§ 46. Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister to make a statement on the position reached in the Korean truce talks.
§ 50. Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister to make a further statement on the truce negotiations in Korea.
§ The Prime MinisterI will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 46 and 50 together, and also deal with Question No. 6 by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
On 7th May the Communists proposed an 8-point plan for the solution of the prisoner-of-war difficulty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I commented on this in the debate last week. On 13th May General Harrison put forward detailed counterproposals which accepted much of the 8-point plan. The Communists have not found these proposals acceptable and the 1694 discussions have been adjourned until Wednesday, 20th May.
As regards consultation, there are constant exchanges of view between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about the armistice negotiations. As a matter of general policy, I am not prepared to say whether or not there were specific consultations on any particular occasion.
I should like, in this connection, to repeat what I said last Monday:
I must remind the House,I said,as I have done several times, that the United States, as mandatory for the United Nations, has borne nineteen-twentieths of the burden in blood and treasure. The matter is not one which we have either the right or the responsibility to decide, but it is our duty, without separating ourselves from our great ally, to express our opinion frankly and plainly to them as occasion offers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 888.]
§ Mr. DonnellyIs it not a fact that there is a substantial difference between the proposals which the Prime Minister set forth as the basis of negotiations and the proposals which were put forward by General Harrison? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is now taking to represent the views of Her Majesty's Government as put forward in last week's debate, because it appears there is a substantial difference at the moment, and there is a great deal of uncertainty and a great deal of apprehension that the right hon. Gentleman's words in this House last week are not being paid any attention?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope I may enjoy the confidence of the House in this matter.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWould the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be the proportion of the cost and sacrifices which may have been borne by the United States, nevertheless this is not a United States proceeding or venture but a United Nations enterprise? Will he therefore agree that the United States would have no mandate or authority whatever to propose terms to the other side inconsistent with the Resolution of the United Nations in that regard? Will he, in this respect, bear in mind that Mr. Nehru, who, after all, was the author of the original Resolution passed by the 1695 General Assembly, said that the Communist proposals were a very close approximation to the Indian Resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, while the counterproposals of the United Nations Command diverged considerably from the General Assembly's Resolution to which the United Nations stands committed?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that that statement by the hon. Member will be on the record.
§ Mr. WyattDoes not the Prime Minister think it is absurd that at this stage in these discussions the United Nations Command is resurrecting a proposal about the immediate release of all Korean prisoners in South Korea, which was rejected about three weeks ago in any case, and which departs from the spirit of the idea which is that all prisoners who do not wish to be forcibly repatriated should go into this neutral commission's zone? Is it not acting as we complain the Communists have acted in the past, to produce a plan which obviously cannot be accepted by the other side? In fact, there is no reason why it should be.
§ Mr. StracheyDid not General Harrison say that the proposals from the Communists were completely unacceptable, and does it not make our support of the prosecution of the war very much more difficult when proposals which we are all agreed are reasonable in principle are rejected by our negotiators?
§ The Prime MinisterI think our view, as expressed in the quotation I have made from what I said last week, is being considered and attention paid to it within the limits which I claim, and I do not think it would be a good thing for us to appear to go on nagging when we do not shrink in any way from placing in detail, through the proper channels, our views upon the subject.
§ Mr. A. HendersonWould not the Prime Minister consider suggesting to the United States and other Governments concerned the advisability of going back to the actual proposals contained in the Indian Resolution which were accepted by the General Assembly, instead of a variation?
§ The Prime MinisterI will bear that suggestion in mind in so far as it has not already been in my thoughts.
§ 49. Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister in what respects the 8-point Communist proposals put forward at Panmunjom are considered by the United Nations organisation to be contrary to the Indian peace proposals adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Gentleman to those passages in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, last Tuesday, which dealt in some detail with the Korean armistice talks.
§ Mr. BeswickI have, of course, read those passages, which I take to be the views of Her Majesty's Government. I have also read what General Harrison has said upon the subject, but the operative words in this Question are, what are the points considered by the United Nations organisation? What I am trying to find out is whether it is possible to get a collective view as a result of consultations among the different members of the United Nations.
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps it may assist the House if I repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend said last Tuesday. He said that the 8-point plan appears to differ from the Indian Resolution in two important points: one, the 8-point plan proposes a commission of five nations, each of whom will provide forces to take custody of the prisoners of war in Korea; two, it does not provide for a time limit for the detention of prisoners who refuse repatriation. The Indian Resolution provides that if, after reference to a political conference, no agreement is reached within 30 days, the United Nations should decide on prisoners-of-war resettlement.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWere not those the differences which the right hon. Gentleman himself, in his own speech, described as differences of detail and procedure and not differences of principle? And if it is true that the present United Nations proposals differ in principle from the Resolution accepted by the Geneva Assembly, ought we not to be consulted before they are put forward in our name?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think I wish to make any claims beyond those 1697 which I have already stated and read out again today, namely, that we assert our full right to express our opinion through whatever channels are thought best and most likely to achieve our purposes. That is the position we adopt, but we do not claim overruling deciding power.