HC Deb 20 December 1954 vol 535 cc2429-33
46. Mr. A. J. Irvine

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on Formosa.

56. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as regards the cessation of all conflicts between the Government of China and the Chinese Nationalist authorities in Formosa.

69. Mr. Donnelly

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Formosa.

Mr. Turton

Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see the fighting in this area brought to an end. As my right hon. Friend said, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 8th December, we have urged upon all concerned the dangers of fighting, the importance of lowering tension, and the need to avoid precipitate action.

Mr. Irvine

Has not Government policy on Formosa—rightly, so far—recognised that there are special circumstances there which affect the question whether an attack by either side would be treated as an act of aggression? Does not the recent speech of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting), reveal a different outlook upon this matter, and are effective steps being taken to undo the harm which has been done by that speech?

Mr. Turton

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a television interview, was being asked some hypothetical questions, and in his reply accurately set out what would be the effect upon the United Nations in such cases.

Mr. Attlee

But was not the Minister of State led into making quite a wrong suggestion, namely, that if there were an attack upon the United States of America this country would be bound to go to her assistance in any circumstances—whereas the case involved was one of a possible intervention in a civil war? Has not it always been made perfectly clear that the action of the United States in Formosa was not an action of the United Nations, and that this country had no participation in it?

Mr. Turton

No, Sir. I have before me the text of the statement made by the Minister of State, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he accurately set out the position of the United Nations. If I may trouble the House, I suggest that the matter has been very well set out in a recent edition of the "Christian Science Monitor," which said that my right hon. Friend's comments involved no new commitment whatever, and ended by saying that this tendency to read anything more into Nutting's remarks is regarded here as misleading and inaccurate.

Mr. Attlee

That may be the view of the "Christian Science Monitor," but the statement was received here with a great deal of dismay in authoritative quarters and in the Press. Surely some statement should be made to correct the implication. Was not there an implication that this country, in circumstances which were not fully discussed, was bound to come to the assistance of the United States in the event of an attack being made upon that country when it was engaged in possible intervention in a civil war in China?

Mr. Turton

No, Sir. No such statement was made, nor should any implication be drawn from the one that was made. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the questions and replies he will see that my right hon. Friend defined the factual position as to who are members of the United Nations and who are not.

Sir W. Fletcher

Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, as reported, are clearly in line with, and go no further or less far than, all the statements made in regard to aggressors; and, second, that by a curious piece of double-talk of the Communist order he is accused by the Chinese Government of not caring what happened to our lads in Korea, when that conflict was incited, prolonged, and extended by the Chinese Government?

Mr. A. Henderson

Did not the Minister of State state that an attack upon Formosa would be an attack upon a member of the United Nations and that this country would therefore be involved, under its obligations under the Charter? Is it not a fact that Formosa has no sovereign status and is not a member of the United Nations and, therefore, that we have no obligation in that event?

Mr. Turton

The position with regard to Formosa is that Japan has renounced her sovereignty over it, but in our view it has not become part of China. That sets out the actual position.

Mr. Henderson

Will not the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Do the Government regard Formosa as a member of the United Nations?

Mr. Turton

I have set out exactly what the Government's view is. It is that Japan has renounced sovereignty over Formosa, which has not yet become part of China.

Mr. Smithers

Is it not clear that all that my right hon. Friend said was that our obligation would be the obligation of a member of the United Nations? Is it not regrettable that the party opposite should seek to object to that position?

Mr. Turton

That is the accurate position. What my right hon. Friend said was that the United Nations would have certain obligations to prevent a general conflagration breaking out in the world, and he set that out.

Mr. Attlee

Surely, the hon. Member would not suggest that, if a member of the United Nations intervened on one side or the other in a civil war, thereupon another member of the United Nations was bound to come to its assistance?

Mr. Turton

I certainly did not suggest that. What I am suggesting to the House is that any form of aggression is a matter for consideration by the members of the United Nations.

Mr. McNeil

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, misled opinion in inferring that there was any automatic obligation? What the hon. Gentleman says now is quite different, and, I am sure, is quite acceptable to the House.

Mr. Turton

I think that if the right hon. Gentleman reads the transcript of the questions and answers by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, he will not fairly come to that conclusion.

Mr. Hamilton

On a point of order. I endeavoured to put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary asking for circulation of the verbatim report of what the right hon. Gentleman said in America. May we now ask the Minister if that verbatim report is, in fact, to be circulated?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order for me.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Hamilton

Further to that point of order. Could you inform me, Mr. Speaker, why one is not permitted to put down, or have accepted, a Question asking for the verbatim report of a statement of policy made by a Minister overseas?

Mr. Speaker

I have not seen the Question, but if the hon. Member submits it to me, I will tell him the reason.

Mr. Warbey

In replying to supplementary questions, the hon. Gentleman quoted from an American newspaper, the "Christian Science Monitor," comments on statements made by the Minister of State. Surely, if he has quoted comments made by that paper, he should circulate the original statement of the Minister of State?

Mr. Speaker

That does not apply to newspapers.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. Did not the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a supplementary question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, say that if my right hon. Friend would read the verbatim report of what the Minister of State said he would see that there was no foundation for the opinion which my right hon. Friend had expressed? Having said that, is not the Minister bound to lay the papers so that we may all read the verbatim report?

Mr. Speaker

That is not necessary; it is not a document of that sort.

47. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to the British representative in the recent debate in the United Nations General Assembly with regard to British policy in relation to Formosa.

Mr. Turton

The question of British policy in relation to Formosa did not arise in the course of the recent debates in the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Henderson

In view of the misunderstanding that seems to have been created by the hon. Gentleman's replies to previous Questions, will he not now undertake to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the quotations which he made from the "Christian Science Monitor"?

Mr. Turton

I do not think that arises out of this Question.

Mr. Younger

Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to circulating this verbatim report?

Mr. Turton

I have no objection at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not do it, then?"] It was a television interview in the United States, but I will certainly look into the matter to see whether that is practicable.

Mr. McNeil

Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is such interest, on the part of both friendly and suspicious people, on this subject that it would be to the advantage to the whole House that the verbatim report should be circulated? Why did the hon. Gentleman hesitate to give this undertaking?

Mr. Turton

It was a fairly long interview, but I will look into it and see in what way hon. Members can best be acquainted with the full details.