+
577
China (Detained
British Subjects)
578
13 JUNE 1968
passion and by a shrewd awareness of reality.
We have protested. The Foreign Secre- tary has done his utmost, but protests in the case of China seem to make very little difference. My second question therefore is whether it is possible for us somehow to arrange for those nations which trade and have relations with China to make a common démarche to the Chinese Government to indicate to them what damage they are doing to their reputation in the world. I think that collective action may make some sense here.
Thirdly, retaliation. This is very diffi- cult but easy for people to suggest. It is terribly difficult for any responsible Gov- ernment to take retaliatory action. But, for all that, there are in this country a number of Chinese, particularly at the China News Agency. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is right that our correspondents, businessmen and seamen in Peking should be put into this difficult situation and Chinese nationals here suffer no difficulty whatever.
Fourthly, could the Minister give some indication-I am sure that he will if he is able-about the up-to-date picture con- cerning seamen? We, as a great ship- ping nation interested in export, must, above all, resist the seizing of our sea- men and masters from their vessels in Chinese ports.
10.16 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): During the last year hon. Members on both sides of the House have been deeply concerned about the detention of British subjects in China. There have been Questions at frequent intervals, as the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) said, and we had a brief opportunity to look more closely at the matter on the Consular Relations Bill. In addition I have tried personally to keep informed those Members particu- larly affected in their constituency capacity.
This evening the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has provided a further occasion on which to express our continuing anger and dis- tress at the detentions. May I say how much I appreciate the thoughtful and constructive way in which he has raised the issue? I think that our short dis- cussion has been marked both by com-
28 1. 1
་
On 29th May, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I gave the most reliable information then avail- able on British subjects detained in China. The only information we have had since then has come from the Crook
family in this country, who have told us that they have received letters recently from Mrs. Crook and the children which indicate that they are well, but do not mention Mr. Crook himself.
All these British citizens are in one way or another victims of the Cultural Revo- lution. I cannot on this
on this occasion- though I wish it were otherwise-discuss the fascinating course of the Cultural Revolution or reflect upon its consc- quences. Hon. Members will, however, recall that it began in the latter part of 1966 and reached its height in the summer of last year. It led to divisions in the Chinese leadership with conse- quences for public order in many parts of the country. It seems, too-and this is particularly relevant to our present dis- cussion-to have brought about a harden. ing of Chinese attitudes towards foreigners-all foreigners, not only towards the British-and a general mood of militancy. For us, its overspill into Hong Kong created special problems.
Throughout May and June 1967 there were disturbances in Hong Kong which were handled with firmness and discretion by the Governor and his staff, who justi- fiably erned widespread praise.
Then on 20th August the Chinese de- livered an ultimatum in Peking concern- ing events in Hong Kong, particularly measures taken against the Communist Press. There followed demonstrations on two successive days against our Mission, the office-setting it on fire-and also the and on the 22nd August a mob sacked
Residence of the Chargé d'Affaires. Members of the staff were roughly treated, although there were fortunately no serious injuries. We immediately im- posed certain restrictions on the move- ments of staff of the Chinese Mission in London, in particular to prevent them leaving the country without an exit per- mit. Our staff in Peking were even more narrowly restricted, being unable to leave the compound in which they live.
?