§ 3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, with the permission of the House, I desire to repeat for the information of your Lordships a statement just made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, in answer to a group of questions about the situation in Korea. The statement is as follows:
"As the House is aware, on June 8 the Armistice Delegations at Panmunjom signed the agreement on the question of prisoners of war. This agreement followed quickly the revised proposals which were put forward by the United Nations Command on May 25 with the support of Her Majesty's Government. We are satisfied that the arrangements now agreed will ensure that no prisoner of war is repatriated by force.
"Two points of substance which were outstanding when I made my last statement on May 21 have been settled to our satisfaction. India will be invited to provide the forces to take custody of prisoners under the Neutral Repatriation Commission. Prisoners who refuse to be repatriated will not be detained beyond 120 days after they have been transferred to the custody of the Commission. The other provisions of an armistice agreement have already in the main been agreed for many months past. Thus nothing ought now to stand in the way of the conclusion of an armistice except the necessary administrative arrangements, which I trust may be soon completed.
"I will repeat again to the House what I said a month ago"—
in this context "I" means my right honourable friend the Prime Minister— 747 "upon our relations with the United States about Korea:
'The United States, as mandatory for the United Nations, has borne nineteen-twentieths of the burden in blood and treasure. The matter is not one which we have either the right or the responsibility to decide, but it is our duty, without separating ourselves from our great Ally, to express our opinion frankly and plainly to them as occasion offers.'"This was well received in Washington and generally throughout the United States. We made a number of suggestions to the United States Government. These were most attentively considered. They were discussed on several occasions not only with our Ambassador but with representatives of the members of the British Commonwealth with combatant forces in Korea who were invited by the State Department to attend the meetings. In the result we found ourselves in complete accord on the new proposals to be made at Panmunjom. We thought it right in view of this to make public our intention to support the United States along these lines in any way that might be desirable or necessary."When this statement was issued, events moved rapidly to the agreement to which I have just referred. Under the decisive guidance of President Eisenhower a result has been achieved which, unless new disappointments occur, will he of high value in itself and also important in relation to the world position.
"Perhaps I may make this further observation. I do not feel that full justice has been done by us here during the last few months to the difficulties to which General Clark and General Harrison were subjected, not only by Communist obstinacy but also by the attitude of the South Korean Government under Mr. Syngman Rhee. One must remember that it was the policy of the United States to build up a strong, well-armed, efficient South Korean Army which in course of time would relieve them of the heavy burden they have been carrying. This army has for some time been a factor of growing importance. In my opinion, these Generals most faithfully sought to bring hostilities to an end in terms compatible with the honour of the Allied Powers acting under the autho- 748 rity of the United Nations, but all the time they had to consider the reactions which might occur in the powerful South Korean forces which they were creating and had to a large extent created.
"The House will recall that the draft Armistice Agreement provides for the summoning of a political conference where serious issues remain to be discussed. It would be unwise to assume that many difficulties do not lie ahead. But I feel we may regard what has happened as constituting a definite step forward towards the goal we all seek."
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords. I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating to us here the statement which has been made. We should all desire to extend our congratulations to President Eisenhower and to all those who under him have been able to bring about this happy result. We think that successive Governments in this country and in the Commonwealth, and particularly the Government of India, have made most useful contributions towards bringing this about, and we hope that this is a happy augury for our successful work together in the future. If there has been any failure to appreciate the difficulties, that failure has been dissipated by greater knowledge, and I hope that the Government will keep us fully informed of any fresh development or difficulties which may arise.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, I am sure that the whole House will rejoice that after complete agreement had been reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States the negotiations in Korea on the difficult question of the prisoners have at long last reached a conclusion, and that the way is clear to an Armistice. But we realise, as the Government statement has reminded us, that the Armistice merely gives us access to the great political difficulties that lie ahead. I am glad that the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken paid tribute to the part played by the Government of India, first, in the hard negotiations in the United Nations, and afterwards by accepting the main responsibility for the execution of the provisions with regard to the prisoners. I do not think the time has come when this House would wish 749 to debate this matter—I feel it is better to let events take their course—but at this present moment it is well that some of us should make clear that public opinion in this country would not tolerate the prospects of an Armistice and a Peace being spoiled by intransigence on the part of the Government of South Korea.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, can the noble Marquess say whether the conclusion of this Armistice terminates the state of war with China?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, so far as I know no armistice terminates a state of war. It brings to a temporary standstill—though we hope it will be permanent—the actual hostilities: no more and no less. That is what I understand to be the nature of an armistice.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, is the noble Viscount right in saying that there is a state of war with China?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWhat I was particularly interested to know was how it affects the commercial embargo: whether, if war ceases, commerce can resume, or whether it must await the prolonged negotiations of a Peace Treaty.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, that will be a question which we shall have to discuss when we come to the political conference to which reference was made in the statement I have already read. It must be understood what the limitations of an Armistice are, and, as I say, I understand those limitations to be the cessation of actual hostilities in the field.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEYes; but the reason for the embargo was that we were anxious not to supply munitions to people who were fighting us. If they have agreed to cease fighting us, is not the case for the embargo due for revision?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGNo. I think the noble Viscount will see this. One profoundly hopes that an Armistice will bring hostilities in Korea finally to an end. But it will be an Armistice, and therefore, it might be that hostilities will break out again before a peace has been concluded. From that point of view, the matters to which the noble Viscount is referring are not matters to be discussed under an Armistice Agreement, but under a more permanent settlement.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, I should like to ask whether it is not the case that the embargo on trade with China in strategic materials is the result of a resolution of the United Nations; and therefore would not the removal of that embargo, in any case, be a matter for the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct in that. It may well he that that is the more appropriate machinery, rather than the political conference; but it may well be that the United Nations discussions and the political conference will go on simultaneously at, one hopes, a not too distant future date.
§ LORD WINSTERBut it is not an affair for unilateral action?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGNo, certainly not. I should just like to thank the noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and from the Liberal Front Bench for what they said about the situation which has now happily come about, and to say that their remarks will be gratefully received, not only by Her Majesty's Government but by the Government of India and also, I believe, in the United States.