§ 2.40 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that the resolution relating to the embargo on arms, armaments and strategic materials to areas under the control of the People's Republic of China and the North Korean authorities was recommended to, and adopted by, the General Assembly of the United Nations on 18th May, 1951, in order to provide, in the terms of the resolution, for "additional measures to be employed to meet the aggression in Korea"; whether under any subsequent resolution adopted by the General Assembly the resolution of 18th May, 1951, has been so amended, and its scope so widened, as to cause it to become operative in relation to hostilities in Indo-China or in any other territories outside Korea and Korean waters; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will state the terms of any such resolution.]
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Viscount's Question is, Yes; and to the second part. No.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. Arising out of it, may I ask him whether, seeing that the scope of the resolution has not been widened, Parliament may now take it that in any approaches to the subject of ending the embargo Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration matters relating only to the situation in Korea and Korean waters and not to the situation in any other areas?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to make the position clear. The ban to which the noble Viscount's Question referred was imposed, as he rightly says, in connection with the Korean War. If, as we all hope, peace is secured in Korea, a new situation will be created and we shall have to consult with our friends on the continuation or the ending of the ban. That would depend on the situation at that time existing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKI thank the noble Marquess again, but with peace in Korea, would not the extension of the embargo entail another resolution of the United Nations?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt would first entail consultation with our friends; and that would take place.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, does the noble Marquess mean that we are going to substitute for the United Nations, which has hitherto been the main body, some other body called "our friends"?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo. But the Powers concerned in the embargo would have consulted together before. It is in accordance with the resolution of May 18, 1951. There is no difference in that; there would be further consultations on the same terms as took place before the resolution of May 18. There is nothing underhand about it.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am not suggesting that there was anything underhand.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKWould that be subject again, as it was in the first instance, to the deliberations of the United Nations?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI should like to have notice of that question. I should have thought that if the situation which led to the imposition of the ban, the last resolution, came to an end, the matter would have to come again before the United Nations. That would be my view.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEAnd then would the Government's policy be to remove the embargo?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Viscount must wait until the situation arises. The situation with which his question deals is purely hypothetical. No one knows what the situation would be at that time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that there is a little uncertainty in trading circles about this matter, especially on the point I mentioned last time this matter was raised—the indications given in the Press from the United States of America that they were going to alter their policy in relation to this embargo? If that is so, may we have an assurance that the consultations to which the noble Marquess has referred will commence at once, in advance of anything happening?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, I do not think I can give such an assurance. As always in foreign affairs, it is necessary to act realistically in accordance with the conditions at that time obtaining. At the present moment there is no reason to alter the resolution passed by the United Nations on May 18, 1951. If a new situation is created, as would be the case if peace were secured in Korea, the matter would come up in the ordinary way for further consultation, and, if necessary, a further resolution. I am certain that for Her Majesty's Government to bind themselves at this moment to do something in the future, which may be the distant future, and of which the circumstances are not known, would be quite impossible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHI think there are two views about the last statement. There is a good deal of anxiety about this matter in trading circles, with which I am sometimes in touch. We have had difficulties. We have been losing contracts overseas 633 from two points of view: first, the ling time sometimes taken in negotiation for trading contracts, and, secondly, dates of delivery. In view of these facts, I am anxious, on behalf of British trade, that no time whatsoever should be lost, and that we should not be left behind by any other countries which are consulting in advance.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will transmit to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary everything the noble Viscount has said. I know that there is uncertainty. But there is uncertainty in the international situation. Traders cannot, any more than anyone else, expect to have certainty in a situation which is inevitably unknown.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKAs this matter is of great importance, I hope that the noble Marquess will forgive my asking him this further question. If these consultations are in prospect, will he keep Parliament in touch with the fact that they propose to hold the consultations?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will transmit to the Foreign Secretary everything that has been said by the noble Viscount. I cannot do any more than that to-day.