§ 23. Mr. Zilliacus
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Cairo Declaration of 1st December, 1943, with regard to Formosa and the Pescadores, with particular reference to their restoration to the Republic of China, and with regard to the undertaking given in the Potsdam Declaration of 26th July, 1945, to carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration.
§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
As the hon. Member was informed in reply to Questions on 30th January, 1956, and 26th June, 1957, the Cairo Declaration, which was reaffirmed by the Potsdam Declaration, was merely a statement of common purpose. Both were made at a time when there was only one entity claiming to represent China. Since then there has been a civil war in China and opinions differ as to who now represents the Government of China. The problem of 1141 Formosa has become an international one, in which a number of nations are concerned, and it cannot be solved merely by reference to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations.
§ Mr. Zilliacus
Did not the Government take the view in the Cairo Declaration that Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores were territories stolen from China by Japan, arid did they not pledge themselves to the purpose of restoring such territories to China? Do they not recognise the People's Republic of China as being the Government of China? Have they therefore either changed their mind about these territories being stolen from China, or do they believe that territories stolen from China should not be returned to that country?
§ Mr. Lloyd
I advise the hon. Member to read my reply, in which I stated the reasons why we did not consider that this matter could be solved now by reference simply to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. I thought that the question of Formosa was one on which there was common ground between the Opposition and the Government.
§ 24. Mr. Zilliacus
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to recognising the sovereign rights of the People's Republic of China over the Chinese coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu.
§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 5th November and what I myself said on 15th February, 1956.
§ Mr. Zilliacus
Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman on those occasions say that in the Government's view these coastal islands are part of the territory of China? If so, is not any attempt by the United States to resist by force the recovery of possession of those islands by the Government of China an act of aggression by the United States?
§ Mr. Bevan
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to my question. It is not a question of restoring by us; it is a question of our support. For three years there was no firing. For how long would the bombardment have to cease in order that we might then be prepared to support the restoration of these islands to China?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can clear up a point for me? I did not quite catch the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether that question was friendly to Her Majesty's allies or friendly to Her Majesty's potential enemies?