HC Deb 02 May 1955 vol 540 cc1342-4
48. Mr. Beswick

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with the United States of America regarding the future of Formosa, he will make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake any commitments which might involve the use of British troops to safeguard the present position of the Chiang Kai-shek Government.

Mr. Turton

In the course of the debate on National Service last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made Her Majesty's Government's position perfectly plain. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Beswick

The Prime Minister's answer dealt with every variation and permutation of this question except that contained in my Question today. If the position has been made quite plain, cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether the answer to this Question is "yes" or "no"?

Mr. Turton

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Prime Minister. If he does not find that completely full, I refer him again to the answers given by the Secretary of State on 27th April. I think those statements made our commitments absolutely plain and clear.

Mr. Shinwell

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are in conversation with the Government of the United States on Formosa, and to what purpose?

Mr. Turton

There is normal diplomatic correspondence going on on all matters of foreign policy with the American and other Governments. Beyond that, I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Shinwell

That is a statement of a very general character, and everybody is aware of the obvious. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in respect of the matter embodied in this Question relating to Formosa and the possibility of difficulties arising with Chiang Kai-shek over Formosa, the Government are in conversation with the United States?

Mr. Turton

I rather misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question. If he is asking whether we are in conversation with the United States Government over commitments in respect of Formosa, the answer is "No."

Mr. Beswick

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand the statement to which he has referred, and that in it the Prime Minister made references to what his intentions are or were, and about what he had been asked to do and what he had done, but that he did not give an assurance on the lines for which I ask in this Question? If the answer is so simple, would the hon. Gentleman not be good enough to say whether it is "yes" or "no"?

Mr. Shinwell

The Prime Minister is here now.

Mr. Turton

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words the Prime Minister used last Thursday. He said: We have one commitment in respect of Formosa and that area—the same commitment as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have—and that is to support the United Nations in any action which it may think necessary from time to time to maintain peace or to resist aggression in any part of the world. That is our commitment, and it is our only commitment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 1201.] That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.