§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has sent to the British representative on the Security Council in view of the threat to peace in Korea, and whether he will make a statement.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown)Yes, Sir. As the House will be aware the United States ship "Pueblo" was intercepted in the early hours of 23rd January while on a routine patrol by a North Korean naval craft. The "Pueblo" was boarded and taken into the North Korean port of Wonsan, where the ship and crew have been detained.
The United States Government take the most serious view of the seizure of the "Pueblo", which follows on a series of violations of the Armistice Agreement of 1953 by North Korean elements and has called for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider this grave threat to peace.
The United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations is being instructed to support the inscription of this item on the agenda of the Security Council and to assist in whatever way he can to bring about a satisfactory solution.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon is, therefore, returning to New York tonight.
§ Mr. GriffithsWhile thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, at very short notice, may I say that I hope that good sense will prevail on both sides in this incident?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman these short questions? First, what residual responsibility, if any, does Britain retain as a contributor to the United 742 States forces which repulsed the last Communist aggression in Korea? Are we guarantors of the Panmunjom armistice line and the demilitarised zone?
Secondly, where exactly was the "Pueblo" when she was attacked and what precisely was she doing? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman say, while doing his utmost to make good sense prevail, that we maintain our broad solidarity with the United States and the United Nations in Korea, and can he say, too, whether we would now——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Questions must be reasonably brief.
§ Mr. BrownI endorse completely what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his remarks. It is not only our hope; it is in the absolutely crucial interests of everybody that a peaceful and satisfactory solution is found. That is why I think we must take the meeting in New York exceedingly seriously right from the beginning.
Our position was made clear on 15th August, 1953, by the then Prime Minister, when he issued a statement on the Joint Declaration of 7th August of that year, to which we are a party. He made it clear that that Declaration by us with the other nations applied only in the case of unprovoked aggression. Obviously, the circumstances of the incident are exactly what the United Nations Security Council will be dealing with. I would much rather not make any comment on it now.
As to where the ship was at the time of the incident, on all the evidence available to me I am satisfied that it was on the high seas. But this, again, will be one of the issues which will be taken into account in the discussions in New York, and I would rather say no more on that.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Macdonald.
§ Mr. MacdonaldI have nothing to say on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am so sorry, Mr. Dalyell.
§ Mr. Tam DalyellDoes the Foreign Secretary recollect that at the time of the World Football Cup the North Koreans were welcome guests here and that the whole atmosphere was flowing with exuberant good will? In this particular 743 instance, might there not be a case for capitalising on the good will that was created at that time by making a direct approach to the North Korean Government, unorthodox though that may be?
§ Mr. BrownI have no doubt at all that the right forum for this is the Security Council of the United Nations. That is what it is there for. The whole series of incidents which have led up to this and the whole situation there make it very much a matter to be dealt with seriously there and I should prefer that we made our contribution in that forum.
§ Mr. G. CampbellWhile hoping that this episode will be settled with the minimum of heat, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government, as well as the United States Government, do not take a very serious view of the seizure of ships in international waters?
§ Mr. BrownWithout wanting at all to increase the tension or worsen the atmosphere, clearly we, as a major maritime Power, apart from anything else, must be very outraged at the idea of hijacking ships on the high seas when they are engaged on purposes on which they are perfectly entitled to be engaged.
I was asked earlier what the ship was doing. I do not want to go very much into this except to say that all of us—all the nations of the world—must be our age. We know very well that there are activities in which everybody is engaged. There are ships off our coasts: we know what they are doing. We really must be sensible about each other's activities in this sphere.
§ Mr. WinnickIs my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will be extremely pleased and grateful at his statement that there should be a peaceful solution to this question? Is he also aware that there can only be a feeling of contempt for the "hawks"—whether they be in Washington, North Korea or South Korea—who may want to start another Korean war?
§ Mr. BrownIn view of some exchanges that my hon. Friend has had with me on another question, I am glad to hear him on this occasion spread his general views around with impartiality.
§ Mr. WoodIn this grave situation will the Foreign Secretary undertake to keep the House informed of any developments that there may be?
§ Mr. BrownYes. At the moment, in the short time I have had, it is impossible to see how the matter will be handled or operated, or what the time scale will be in New York. Therefore, I do not want to tie myself to making yet another appearance in the House on Monday, which I think would make eight days out of nine, but I will come to the House as soon as there is something useful that I can say.