HC Deb 26 January 1955 vol 536 cc158-64
Mr. Attlee

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the international situation in the Far East.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden)

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have been in close and constant touch with the United States Government in recent months concerning the dangerous situation arising out of Chinese Communist attacks upon the islands off the coast of China near the Formosa Straits. We have, also, of course, maintained close contact with the Governments of the Commonwealth and particularly with Her Majesty's Government in New Zealand, which is the other Commonwealth member of the Security Council and its present chairman.

These small islands have been in Chinese Nationalist hands ever since the Japanese surrender in 1945. There had been a lull in attacks upon them between 1949 and 1954, but these were resumed in August last, shortly after the fighting had been ended in Indo-China by the Geneva settlement. The attacks were accompanied by a marked increase in the vehemence of Chinese Communist demands for the transfer of Formosa to the administration of the Chinese Communist Government.

In this situation the first concern of Her Majesty's Government has been, and is, to stop the fighting. We have, therefore, continued to urge on all concerned the importance of doing this and of preventing a wider conflagration. Force is not the solution of these delicate and difficult problems. A settlement can only be arrived at by the peaceful process of patient negotiation.

Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the object of the United States Administration has also been to reduce the risks of any extension of the fighting. Their treaty with General Chiang Kai-shek which defines their commitments was concluded with this object in view.

President Eisenhower, in his recent message to Congress, has been careful to say that he is not suggesting that the United States should enlarge its defensive obligations beyond Formosa and the Pescadores as provided by the Mutual Defence Treaty with General Chiang Kai-shek. The President has again emphasised the purely defensive nature of the arrangements with the Chinese Nationalists.

We in this country respect President Eisenhower and know that he would sanction the use of United States forces only with the greatest reluctance and when, in his view, the circumstances constituted an immediate and serious threat to the security of Formosa and the Pescadores. This is not a new element in United States policy.

On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government also understand that in the matter of the coastal islands the Chinese Government cannot be expected to act in such a way as might seem to prejudice what they regard as their rights. We are, however, convinced that the problem of the coastal islands is susceptible of a peaceful solution if only all concerned are prepared to work for it.

In consultation with the United States and other friendly Governments, Her Majesty's Government are examining various courses of action which might further this aim. I will give the House additional information on this subject as soon as I am in a position to do so, having regard to the international discussions which are now proceeding.

Mr. Attlee

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. It is, of course, clear that in this matter of Formosa and the islands there is an intervention in a civil war. It is purely an action by the United States of America and not an action of the United Nations. But in view of the need for preventing hostilities and trying to get a peaceful arrangement, is it not clear that the right thing would be that China should occupy her proper position in the United Nations?

Sir A. Eden

As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I must say that I am surprised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— that he should couple Formosa and the offshore islands in one sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware, those have always been treated as separate issues, including during the period when he was responsible as Prime Minister. Formosa has never in this century been a part of China and the status of Formosa—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this is very important; I must be allowed to finish—was dealt with by the Treaty of San Francisco, signed by the late Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that hon. Gentlemen should treat this with sufficient seriousness to let the Foreign Secretary make his answer. The offshore islands have always been regarded, and are now regarded, by us as part of China. Therefore, we have always been careful to draw that distinction which, I believe, the House should carefully maintain.

As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about China and the United Nations, again, nobody knows better than the late Government what caused the delay in the admission of the present Chinese Government to the United Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head, I would remind him there was an act of aggression by the Chinese Communist Government in Korea which was so declared by his representative at the United Nations. It was that event, most unfortunately, which held up the whole process of the admission of China to the United Nations. It is not until we can get a settlement of these issues, the first stage of which is a cessation of fighting in this particular area, that we can hope that wider issues will be settled, too.

Mr. Attlee

I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has left out some of the history. It is quite true that Formosa was seized from China by an act of aggression by Japan. It is equally true that at conferences at the end of the war Formosa was declared to be an integral part of China, and no one stated that more clearly and with more emphasis than Chiang Kai-shek. The fact that he has been put out in favour of another Government does not really alter the position. Another point is that surely the question of the admission of China to her proper seat in the United Nations was raised some considerable time before any aggression in Korea, and it was denied to her. One of the difficulties in dealing with the matter was that whereas we expected China to observe the rules of the United Nations she was kept out of her proper place in the Security Council.

Sir A. Eden

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt right in saying that the question of the admission of Communist China to the United Nations was raised before the period when China committed her declared act of aggression. The whole of that period was, of course, in the administration of the late Government. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has no cause whatever to charge us with any failure at that time because the Chinese Communist Government was not a member of the United Nations. These charges are made and I should like to answer them.

Mr. Attlee

I made no charge whatever against the Government. I was stating a fact that by the opposition of certain other Powers the United Nations was closed to the proper representative of China. I am well aware that the line we always took was that the Chinese Republic were the proper people to be represented there and not the remnant in Formosa.

Sir A. Eden

Then we are completely agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] We are agreed that during the life of the late Government it was not found possible to reach international agreement to admit the Chinese Communist Government to the United Nations, and we are also agreed, I hope, that since then the act of aggression by Communist China in Korea, which was condemned by the late Government's representative at United Nations, has, unfortunately, delayed that representation further. These are international facts that we have to face. I tell the House in all seriousness that if we are to meet the present situation which arises out of trouble in the past, for which certainly no Government in this country bears direct responsibility, we can only hope to get a wider settlement if we can get an immediate cease-fire where shots are being exchanged, and it is on that that I think we have to concentrate our endeavours.

Mr. Attlee

I hope that that will be applied to both sides. There is a great deal of indiscriminate attack from the point of view of Chiang Kai-shek. When I was in China, with some colleagues, we had to make a diversion through the interior because of attacks on aircraft on the mainland of China.

Sir A. Eden

My statement is quite clear. The cessation of fighting must be on both sides.

Mr. Bevan

The Foreign Secretary stated that the position of Formosa is much different from that of the offshore islands.

Sir A. Eden

I said "different."

Mr. Bevan

Is different. This has been described in America as a sort of jurisdictional line. We have not been able to understand the situation there. It has always been understood by us that Formosa, equally with the offshore islands, belonged to the mainland of China. That has been our position. Does the right hon. Gentleman now suggest that the situation has been altered by virtue of the fact that Formosa was stolen from China in 1896? Is it now an interpretation of international law that if you steal property from a thief you can hold it?

Sir A. Eden

As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, as a result of a treaty Formosa has not formed part of China throughout the whole of this century. I think that we should be doing very little good to our relations, especially our relations with Peking, if we were to indicate that we thought that the position of the offshore islands was comparable with the position of Formosa. It is no such thing, because throughout the period the offshore islands have been beyond dispute a part of China, whereas for half a century Formosa has been part of Japan. The legal aspect of that was first dealt with in the Treaty of Peace to which I have already referred.

Mr. Attlee

The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that acts of aggression alter these things. It was the act of aggression of Japan that made the Powers accept the position that Formosa was an integral part of China and should be returned to her at the end of the war.

Sir A. Eden

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that, but I do not think the House would be wise to accept that the position of Formosa, which for half a century has not been part of China, is the same as the position of these islands which, at all times, have been, and are today, recognised as part of China, and I would advise the House to be very careful on the matter.

Mr. Strachey

Are we to understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that he now regards Formosa as not being an integral part of China? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what right he considers Chiang Kai-shek's Government have to rule that island?

Sir A. Eden

I regard the status of Formosa as that defined by the Treaty signed by the late Government at San Francisco.

Mr. N. Macpherson

In all these disputes will the Government not overlook the wishes of the people of Formosa themselves?

Mr. Warbey

Is not the right hon. Gentleman capable of distinguishing between the status of Formosa and the state of civil war that has been going on, and is still going on, between the two contesting parties in China? Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who asked whether or not the United States is intervening in a civil war? Will he make it clear to the United States that the people of this country will not support any action by the Government on behalf of the United States Government which would involve us in war with China?

Sir A. Eden

I thought that I was capable of distinguishing, that I had so distinguished and that I had got into trouble for so distinguishing.

Mr. Bellenger

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear what is the position of this country? He has defined the position of the United States of America. We are closely associated with the United States as members of the United Nations. What is likely to be the position of this country?

Sir A. Eden

I hoped that I had said as much as the House would expect me to say about that. There are discussions of very considerable importance proceeding now between us, the United States and, in particular, the New Zealand Government as the other member of the Council. I would hope, in the course of the next few days, to be able to give the House further information about that. I hope that I may be allowed to do that. This is one of the most difficult positions that I have ever seen in the international situation. I hope that the House will be a little patient if I am not able to give as much information, stage by stage, as I should normally like to give as these events develop.

Mr. Patrick Maitland

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his patient endeavours to secure a cease-fire and prevent the danger of a wider conflagration carry with them the good will and heartfelt prayers of most of the people of this country?

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not the fact that Chiang Kai-shek himself claims to be in Formosa, and to be the Government of Formosa, only because he claims to be the rightful Government of China? And if that is the case, is it not also the fact that this country has rejected that claim and accepted the claim of the Peking Government to be the Government of China? Is there, then, any doubt that so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned we do, in fact, recognise Formosa as part of the Chinese mainland?

Sir A. Eden

I should be reluctant to follow the hon. Gentleman in all that. All I have tried to postulate this afternoon—and which, I hope, the House will bear in mind—is that I think that in international law as well as in international fact the position of the offshore islands should be kept distinct to some extent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only asking the House to accept the argument. It should be kept distinct from the position of Formosa. That is all I ask.