HC Deb 19 November 1958 vol 595 cc1140-2
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 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. Lloyd

On each occasion I referred to the statement made by Sir Anthony Eden in which he stated our view as to the juridical status of the islands but said that in our view the status quo should not be changed by force.

Mr. Bevan

If it is the Government's view, first, that these islands belong to China but that we are not prepared to support any surrender to force, for how long would the Communist Government of China have to refrain from bombarding these islands for us to agree to restore them to China?

Mr. Lloyd

We do not have possession of the islands. It is not for us to restore them. I have always hoped that this is a matter which might be dealt with by negotiation.

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?

Mr. Lloyd

Even if I were able to fix a period, there would be no point in my doing so. What we have to work for is a reduction in tension and worth-while negotiations, and that is what we have done.

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?

Mr. Lloyd

I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend reads the hon. Member's supplementary question in HANSARD he will be able to form his own judgment.

Back to