§ Q6. Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to achieve a peaceful solution to the war in Vietnam.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the Foreign Affairs Debate on 19th July.
§ Mr. NewensDoes my right hon. Friend now recognise that the attempts made by the Government to bring about a peaceful solution in Vietnam have been seriously undermined by the support given by the Government to American policies? Will he at this stage take the opportunity to make it clear that British opposition to the build-up of forces in South Vietnam applies equally to the additional land forces which the United States Government have now decided to send in?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir; I am not going to make anything of the kind clear. I dealt with this matter very, very fully indeed in the recent foreign affairs debate, and it has, I am afraid, become very clear—it has become even more clear as a result of the mission of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to Hanoi—that there are people in the Far East, in important countries, who hold the key to the situation and who at the moment feel that they are winning and that they may lose more round the conference table than they can win on the battlefield. I am sure they are wrong. As I have said before, I am sure that there will be no military solution, and it will not be long before this realisation spreads. Therefore, it is right that we should continue as we have been going. It should be recalled that the Commonwealth Peace Mission represents Governments of every point of view, some who have supported the United States, some who have taken an unaligned position and some who have been against the United States. I still think that this provides the basis for bringing all concerned round the conference table under the aegis of the Anglo-Russian Co-Chairmen of the 1954 Agreements.
§ Mr. BlakerThe Prime Minister will recall that he has said that the key to the problem lies in Hanoi. If he is considering how to make contact, if the occasion arises, with the Hanoi authority, would he bear in mind that there are capitals in the world where both Hanoi and we have missions, and would he consider whether it is possible to make contact, if necessary, through those missions?
§ The Prime MinisterI wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks we have been doing all these months. We have, of 1879 course, been trying every possible means of contact with Hanoi, and so have the United States in one particular example which I mentioned in our recent debate. But the difficulty has been that Her Majesty's Government—both this Government and the previous Government—do not recognise North Vietnam in a diplomatic sense, and this has been a bar to the kind of contacts that have been referred to. However, I am glad to say that, despite the strong views expressed by one or two right hon. Gentlemen opposite about our taking the wrong lines by these contacts with Hanoi, what we did has now been explicitly and publicly supported by President Johnson, who in particular referred to the very great value and good effects of the visit of my hon. Friend to Hanoi.
§ Mr. A. HendersonCan my right hon. Friend give any indication whether the four peace points that have been put forward by Mr. Dong, the Prime Minister of North Vietnam, would be acceptable as a basis of discussion at a reconvened Geneva conference, especially in view of the suggestion that such a course would not be unacceptable to the United States Government?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is, of course, something that we could have discussed if the Commonwealth Mission had gone to Hanoi. But I myself do not feel that the four points provide of themselves a solution to the problem. However, I said in the debate that I believed that a return to the spirit and performance of the 1954 Agreements would provide a basis for a solution. I would also commend—I think that this ought to be pressed more in international activities—the very detailed proposals that were published in what were called "guide lines" to the Commonwealth Conference on this. I believe that the "guide lines" agreed by the Commonwealth would provide the right way to negotiations and peace.
§ Mr. WoodhouseIs the Prime Minister aware that it has been suggested that the Foreign Secretary may have made a misstatement of fact when he said a few weeks ago that the Communists in North and South Vietnam had insisted that, before any conference or discussion took place, all United States troops must leave South Vietnam? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of denying 1880 that allegation and confirming that what the Foreign Secretary said was incorrect?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend was absolutely correct about this. I wish that he had not been. I wish that the situation were different. But it has been repeatedly said in these countries that there must be total evacuation by America from the area before negotiations can take place. I think, however, that there is some doubt as to how far this is a sticking point. There have been signs of a rather different attitude in at least some pronouncements and messages which have filtered through.
This again is a strong argument for the Commonwealth Peace Mission to take an opportunity to talk in Hanoi. Others have been talking in Hanoi. I do not know how far the phrase mentioned by the hon. Gentleman represents the latest thinking of the Hanoi Government. I hope that it does not.
§ Mr. DribergHas my right hon. Friend had any report yet, formally or informally, from the Ghana High Commissioner in London, since President Nkrumah is one of my right hon. Friend's colleagues on the Commonwealth Peace Mission and the High Commissioner has just returned to London from Hanoi?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was that, amongst other things, that I had in mind when I said that we hope to get further information on the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse). I have not had a report yet, directly or indirectly, from the Ghana High Commissioner and, of course, it would be appropriate, in circumstances which we recognise, that he will wish to report to his own President before we get any official report either from Ghana or from the High Commissioner himself in London.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the Prime Minister try to keep down the length of his replies so that more Questions can be asked? I ask this in the friendliest way.
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure whether there was a Question there apart from the first.
§ Mr. LubbockI ask in the friendliest possible way.
§ The Prime MinisterI take it in the friendliest possible way. I have had a tally taken recently of the number of Questions we have got through. Some of these are very important issues. Sometimes the Question have double and treble barrels and sometimes have a preamble which cannot be ignored.