Coastal Islands (Hansard, 7 February 1955)

§ 10. Mr. A. J. Irvine
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what mention was made in approaches recently made to the Soviet Government regarding the situation in the Far East of the desirability of a truce to facilitate the evacuation of the Tachen Islands and of the Soviet Government conveying their view on this matter to the Chinese Government.

§ Sir Anthony Eden
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow saw the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Molotov, on 28th January. He stressed Her Majesty's Government's grave concern over the situation which was developing in the area of the Chinese coastal islands, and expressed the hope that the Soviet Government would feel able to urge restraint on the Chinese and above all the importance of avoiding any incidents which might lead to general hostilities. He did not make specific reference to the evacuation of the Tachen islands. Since that date, I have seen the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in London and Mr. Molotov has seen Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow. I have, however, no statement to make on those conversations at present.

§ Mr. Irvine
While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask if he does not agree that it is a desirable immediate objective to facilitate the evacuation of these islands; that it is important if, as the Soviet Government are reported to have indicated, no objection would be raised to the evacuation? Would he further agree that similar circumstances apply to Quemoy and Matsu?

§ Sir A. Eden
As I have indicated by my answer, conversations are taking place between a number of Governments in this matter. I think that diplomacy must be given its chance to do some work and that I would not help matters along were I to try to follow the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Strachey
As the Foreign Secretary has now said that these islands do belong to China, is it not the Nationalist forces, in failing to evacuate them, who are causing the danger of war, rather than—as he said in his former answer—the Chinese forces, who intend to reoccupy what he now agrees are their own islands?

§ Sir A. Eden
There are some Questions later on the Order Paper on these legal matters. I would only say that everyone's interpretation of these matters, and other nations', is not precisely the same.

§ 16. Mr. A. Henderson
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information Her Majesty's Government have received from the United States Government of their intentions as regards the Tachen Islands and the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

§ Sir Anthony Eden
Since my statement of 26th January, the evacuation of the Tachens has begun. Her Majesty's Government share the hope expressed by the United States Government that these steps will contribute to a cessation of Communist attacks and to the restoration of peace and security in the West Pacific.

§ Mr. Henderson
The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the two islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Will he say anything about those?

§ Sir A. Eden
I have no further statement to make upon that subject.

§ Mr. Henderson
In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago—when he said that the first concern of Her Majesty's Government was to stop the fighting—will he express the hope that the United States Government will at least consult Her Majesty's Government before taking any action in the defence of the islands of Matsu and Quemoy on the ground that they are essential to the defence of Formosa?

§ Sir A. Eden
We are, of course, in close consultation with the United States Government and with other Governments all 1535 the time, as my earlier answers have indicated. As I said last week, we did our best to bring about a cessation of the fighting by inviting the Chinese Communist Government—in the most considerate terms which could be worded—to attend a meeting of the Security Council. I deplore the fact that in abrupt tones that invitation was flatly turned down. It is now the task of Governments to try to work out other methods to bring about a cease-fire in this area. Only when cease-fire conditions are established can we hope to proceed with other methods of pacification.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Would it not be of material help in the present situation if the United States Government were to indicate that they did not intend to retain Quemoy and Matsu under their forces; that they were in favour of the withdrawal of Nationalist troops from those islands as well as the Tachens, and that this would be the best step towards the ultimate neutralisation of Formosa—which the Labour Party has always stood for?

§ Sir A. Eden
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many other considerations would have to be borne in mind before I could give him an answer of that kind. I really think that what I have already said to the House is, in all the circumstances, as far as I can go today. The House really must have confidence that we are doing everything in our power—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to bring about a cease-fire, and I should have thought that the reply of the Communist Government to the Security Council's invitation might have had some criticism from some hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. Younger
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in his own description of the legal situation he has drawn no distinction between the Tachen Islands and Quemoy and Matsu? He has put them into the same category. Since they also appear to be in the same category from the point of view of danger of fighting—because they are just as near the Chinese coast—does not he think that it might be advisable for the United States Government to follow the same policy with regard to Quemoy and Matsu as they are following with regard to the Tachen Islands?

§ Sir A. Eden
I do not want to express any opinions about what I have already 1536 said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I do not think that I should be helping the cause of peace if I were to do so. [Interruption.] As nobody knows better than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), this situation has existed for a very considerable period of years, and how I handle my answers now may have a very considerable effect upon it. I am not going to say a further word about these islands today.

§ Mr. Strachey
As the right hon. Gentleman has now declared roundly that these islands belong to China, surely it would be helpful to the peace of the world and the promotion of a cease-fire—which is his objective—if he were to say that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—even if the American Government could not agree—that the Nationalist forces should evacuate these islands as they are fortunately evacuating the Tachens?

§ Sir A. Eden
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it would help matters if I were to say that this is the view of Her Majesty's Government, though the United States Government take a different view? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In this particular context? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think that we should do far better to try to get agreement between all concerned.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
May we at least take it that Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter is based upon the distinction between the islands off the coast of China and Formosa and the Pescadores which was drawn by the Foreign Secretary himself earlier on?

§ Sir A. Eden
That distinction is not exclusive to ourselves. It was made by the Canadian Government, and I think that it has been expressed several times by the United States Government. It is certainly our view and is known publicly by everybody to be so.

§ Mr. Bevan
Has it not been said by the President of the United States that he considers it is in the interests of peace that there should be no ambiguity as to where commitments lie? Would it not, therefore, be in the interests of peace that we ourselves should not be ambiguous about what we consider to be our interests in this part of the world? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be serving 1537 the interests of peace if he indicated to the United States what we considered to be the status of these islands?

§ Sir A. Eden
That is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Minister of Defence very reasonably asked whether I would put down on paper the legal position in respect of these islands. I have done so, and the whole world can see what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. That is proclaimed, and there it stands.

§ 35. Mr. Foot
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what government is recognised by Her Majesty's Government as the government, de jure or de facto, of the Tachen Islands, Matsu and Quemoy.

§ 36. Mr. W. Griffiths
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the claim of the People's Government of China made to the United Nations Organisation to take possession of the offshore islands such as Quemoy and Matsu.

§ Sir Anthony Eden
I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 4th February in answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

§ Mr. Foot
In view of the fact that the reply makes it clear that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the islands referred to in the Question are undisputably territory which belongs to the Chinese People's Republic, can the Foreign Secretary say what representations he has made to the American Government in view of a resolution passed by the American Congress which arrogates to the American Government the right to make dispositions of territory which the British Government claim to belong to the people of China?

§ Sir A. Eden
The terms of the resolution would not answer to the hon. Gentleman's description. I have dealt earlier with the topic of such conversations, and they have been many, which we have had with the United States Government and other Governments during the last few days, and I have made it clear to the House that I cannot in conducting negotiations of this kind undertake to make statements while discussions are proceeding, and I will not do so.

§ Mr. Griffiths
If the Foreign Secretary could definitely state on Friday that in Her Majesty's Government view these islands undoubtedly form part of the territory of the Peoples' Republic of China, surely he can pluck up his courage sufficiently to say this clearly and categorically to the United States Government and to the Chinese authorities of Formosa, and tell them both that if they get into a military adventure in this quarter Britain will have nothing to do with it?

§ Sir A. Eden
I thought it useful, desirable and in the international interest to make a full statement in reply to the Question which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Defence put down.

§ Mr. Griffiths
In a written reply on Friday.

§ Sir A. Eden
Does the hon. Gentleman think that I am frightened to make it on any other day; is that the idea? The reason that it was a written answer was because the right hon. Gentleman courteously in his original Question said, "If I put down a Written Question, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer?" Of course, I gave him an answer to his original Question in a written form, and I thought that the best way of making clear our decision to the world. I have nothing to abstract from what I said in that answer, and nothing to add to it at present.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this Question while I was away, and as he would not be able to answer it orally it was necessary to get the information in some other way? May I ask him, although hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that while engaged in delicate negotiations and conversations he may not be able to go further than he has done, if he will take note of the views expressed on this side of the House?

§ Sir A. Eden
I hope that I am conscious of the views expressed in all parts of the House, and it was because of that that I felt that clarification in Friday's statement on the purely legal side was desirable. With regard to the political side, which is that which must be discussed between Governments, it is that on which I cannot make a statement while the discussions are proceeding.