A.N.Z.U.S. AND MANILA TREATIES (Hansard, 7 February 1955)

HC Deb 07 February 1955 vol 536 cc1545-52 1545

§ 25. Mr. S. Silverman
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by the United Kingdom to ensure that her freedom of 1546 action is reserved in all cases where the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand are drawn into hostilities arising from membership of the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact.

§ Sir Anthony Eden
None, Sir.

§ Mr. Silverman
Is not this a highly anomalous and wholly unprecedented situation, in that two Dominions owing equal allegiance to the Crown and to ourselves are bound in an agreement with foreign States to which this country is not a party? Does the right hon. Gentleman then say, if no arrangements have been made to preserve our freedom of action, that in those circumstances this country might be dragged into a war of which it did not approve, and, perhaps, on the wrong side?

§ Mr. H. Fraser
On a point of order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) just said that New Zealand owed equal allegiance to the Crown and to ourselves. Surely, he is entirely misinformed on that point?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Sir A. Eden
The position is that the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, was not negotiated during the life of this Government, and I should have thought that was relevant to the accusations the hon. Member is making. I would add that, since the Manila Treaty has been signed, the larger part of the area covered by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty is now covered by the Manila agreement. Therefore, we are much nearer on a like footing to Australia and New Zealand than we were a few years ago, and I am sure that is something which will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and by the whole House. I can see no circumstances in which if Australia or New Zealand were involved in danger, Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom would not be at their side.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to these arrangements having been effected not in the lifetime of the present Government but in the lifetime of the late Government, is he aware that it was not the fault of the late Government that we were not included in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

1547

§ Sir A. Eden
I was not indicting the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I was merely pointing out that still less was it the fault of Her Majesty's present advisers.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Then why did the right hon. Gentleman make reference to the contrast between the late Government and the present Government? May I ask him whether he has any thoughts of a positive character on this subject? Does he think that we should be included in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

§ Sir A. Eden
I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, like the whole House, will be prepared to agree that it is now better than it was in the lifetime of the late Administration.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
In view of the broadcast by Sir Oliver Franks, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is not the fault of Australia or of New Zealand that we are not in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

§ Sir A. Eden
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would put that one down.

§ Mr. Speaker
rose—

§ Mr. Silverman
On a point of order. I thought that this Question was of some importance on which I should indeed be allowed to ask one supplementary question on answers which, I think, require further elucidation. Since then, Mr. Speaker, some three or four Privy Councillors have exercised their right to intervene. May I not now ask my supplementary?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman did ask a supplementary, and several other supplementaries have been asked by other right hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. We must really give other hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper a chance to have them answered.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Further to that point of order. Is there any rule of the House, Mr. Speaker, or any Standing Order, which precludes a Privy Councillor from asking supplementary questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
There is not, but, naturally, if supplementary questions are asked by right hon. Gentlemen it would involve an undue allocation of time to one Question were I to continue it.

1548

§ Mr. Silverman
Further to that point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I no longer have any opportunity of consultations with my right hon. Friends, and that therefore there is absolutely no guarantee that the supplementary questions which they ask on my Question will have anything to do with what I want to raise?

§ Mr. Speaker
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am in the same position; I have no method of consultation either.

§ 31. Mr. Hale
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the danger of extension of hostilities in the Far East, what further representations he has made to the Governments of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand as to the exclusion of the United Kingdom from participating in or consultation by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty Powers.

§ Sir Anthony Eden
Her Majesty's Government have made no representations since the hon. Member last raised this subject. The United Kingdom is now of course associated in the Manila Treaty with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, among other Powers.

§ Mr. Hale
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manila Treaty does not cover Formosa but that the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact does, and in view of the obligations of Australia and New Zealand who were very anxious that we should join the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact under that Treaty, and in view of the fact that that Treaty could involve military operations and of his statement today that he cannot conceive any situation in which Australia and New Zealand would be involved in military obligations without British participation, does not that mean that the decision as to British participation has virtually been taken in Washington?

§ Sir A. Eden
Not at all. The terms of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty in point of fact are not as definite as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he will look at the obligations which the two Powers have under the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, he will see that they are in fact limited.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the answer which he has just given and the answer which he gave to a previous Question on the Order 1549 Paper, that the Manila Treaty has in fact been replaced by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, and, therefore, this country would be involved in any conflict that might arise out of the obligations to which we were originally no t a party?

§ Sir A. Eden
I did not say anything remotely like that. I did say that the Manila Treaty covers a large part of the area covered by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty and the terms of obligation in point of fact under the two treaties are similar and not perhaps as binding as the hon. Gentleman who asked the original Question thought they were.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Would the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of hon. Members, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant parts of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty?