HC Deb 15 May 1959 vol 605 cc1659-78

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

We on this side of the House have listened with interest to the discussion of a vital human problem. Despite the fact that many hon. Members have left for their holiday, I am sure that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan) for having raised this issue. Too many of us forget about it, because we do not meet the problem very often.

It is typical of the variety of Parliament that I should switch to a completely different subject, namely, the problems in South-East Asia. I want to deal with some aspects as I saw them recently when I was in South-East Asia, and I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for being in his place. I apologise to him for probably preventing him from taking advantage of this beautiful sunshine, but I know that he takes his responsibilities seriously and that he will forgive me for having made use of my Parliamentary privilege to try to obtain the last 40 minutes before the Recess to raise some of these issues. Naturally, I cannot expect full answers in such a short debate.

I have travelled through South-East Asia many times, but the last time I was there I was privileged to be a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. The hospitality of the Philippines, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Laotians was beyond all bounds. Their courtesy and their kindness was something which we shall always remember. Despite that, I shall have some critical and, I hope, constructive comments to make. I am not to be lulled into mummified silence, and I know that frank, free and honest criticism will be understood as what it is intended to be rather than as carping, malicious criticism.

The House of Commons and the Foreign Office can be very proud of our ambassadorial services in each one of these countries. The excellent information put at our disposal and the kindness and courtesy of our ambassadors in the region was well known to the six of us who were privileged to go from this House and the other place as members of the delegation.

Before I come to the crux of what I have to say, I wish to ask the Foreign Office to do something more to help the people who have to work in those parts. Our officials there work in hot climates—the temperatures are often terrific—in countries which are under-developed, and I have many times found, when I have been there, that British officials seem to have fewer comforts and amenities than do people from any other country who work in this part of the world. Two years ago, when I came back from Saigon, I asked whether there was any likelihood of installing air conditioning equipment in our embassy building there which is above the Saigon Bank, in Saigon. English women and men work there for this country, but the climate is such that their conditions are not comfortable, and the provision of amenities of this kind would lead to greater efficiency with less wear and tear on the health of our people.

I hope that the Foreign Office will give the Ministry of Works a jerk as well. People skilled in building such as architects or, perhaps, just ordinary builders doing construction work go out there from this country. In Laos, the building of a new embassy is now being completed. When the rate of exchange for the kip was altered, the allowances given to our Ministry of Works people there were not adequate to meet their situation. Our people were not in the same position as their opposite numbers from the United States—who seem to be everywhere—in giving hospitality.

It is wrong that these things should be so. Britain has more experience in South-East Asia, China and the Far East than any other country, and we should give our people the same opportunities and conditions as others have, because their quality, we know, is second to none. I have Laos particularly in mind, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) wishes to say something about Laos a little later. I am now bringing these human problems to the notice of the House on behalf of the servants of our country who are many thousands of miles from home in climates which are difficult to tolerate, particularly at certain times of the year.

I wish the Foreign Office to exercise its mind about our policy in South-East Asia. Ultimately, I want my own party and the House, I hope, to have a full debate on the whole of our foreign policy in South-East Asia. Years ago, I divided the House against the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. I do not raise the issue with bitterness, but I regard the establishment of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation as one of the great mistakes of our foreign policy. It is not a treaty, an organisation or an establishment in the accepted, old concept of international diplomacy. There are only three small nations in it. The nations which canalise their influence in S.E.A.T.O. are the United States of America and, very reluctantly, Britain. Canada had enough sense to keep her skirts away from the Treaty.

When I was in Canada last year I discussed the whole problem of the Pacific with many reliable and well-informed Canadians. They had enough sense not to become involved in this type of treaty which, far from increasing Britain's prestige and, what is more important, the prestige of the so-called free world has, I think—I do not want to be too dogmatic—undermined it.

At the 1954 Geneva Conference we knew why the Treaty was set up at Manila. The Americans did not want that conference to proceed and Mr. Dulles left the conference before it finished. Whatever criticisms I may have of Mr. Dulles, being human. I must pay a tribute to his courage, to his strength of will and to his determination. He is now suffering from an incurable disease and has had to hand over the reins of office. What 1 say now may be taken wrongly in other places, but 1 cannot help that.

It seems to me that there are too many old and sick men in very influential and powerful positions in the world who are unable to grasp keenly the situations that the world is now facing. Mr. Dulles did his duty as he saw it, and I have not the least doubt that he believed he was right. Without being pompous, I say that I honestly believe that his policy was dangerous to world peace when he pushed what he called the "brinkmanship" policy in the Far East and South-Fast Asia.

Through her vast experience in Asia, Britain knows that the whole conception of the South-Fast Asia Treaty is dangerous to the future. We are living in a quivering peace. If hon. Members looked at this Treaty carefully, they would see that it is about subversion. How are we to distinguish between Communist subversion and genuine national movements that attempt to free themselves from national regimes that are now finished and which exploited them?

In this mid-twentieth century world, when there are not Parliaments like ours, how silly we are to try to impose upon the Asians a certain system of democracy. Who decides that a certain system must be the system of democracy that we should have? Where there is not a sophisticated and ancient democracy such as we are proud of here, which we can change through elections and where we can argue, how will it be possible to change Governments? Are we always to call every effort to overthrow a Government in South-East Asia, even by force, a Communist uprising? I cannot agree with that sort of infantile thinking. It is easy to dub a thing Communist when it may be a purely nationalist movement. We have now reached the stage where we must think about these things.

Communiquès were sent out from the fifth meeting of the S.E.A.T.O. at Wellington, on 8th to 10th February, under the chairmanship of Mr. Walter Nash. I have seen them printed in the Library and in the newspapers from time to time. They are platitudinous, because there is no reality in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. We were told: However, during the past year developments in the Taiwan Straits and elsewhere have demonstrated that the Communists are still prepared to pursue their objectives by violence up to the point where they encounter firm resistance. There is a grain of truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. This is only one side of the coin.

I was in the United States when the Quemoy incidents took place. I travelled from one end of the United States to the other. The American people were more perturbed, in a way, than the British people about the incidents in Quemoy. The basic people of America are as peace-loving as the British or anyone else in the world. They were perturbed about what was taking place because their system has not the checks over the Executive that the British system of government possesses. I put a Question to the Foreign Office about the policy on Quemoy put forward by the United States of America.

Have not China and Peking shown a sense of responsibility in this matter? China has not threatened to plunge the world into war and disaster by attacking Taiwan. Chou En-lai told me this two years ago when I spent almost six hours with him in Peking. He wants Formosa and Taiwan, but he was not prepared to plunge the world into war for them. Cannot we in this world, where nobody is perfect and where truth is the most difficult thing to obtain, reassess the whole basis of this alphabet of alliances in South-East Asia?

We have S.E.A.T.O., A.N.Z.U.S., M.E.D.O., and N.A.T.O. The very fact that we use the alphabet shows our unbelief in the living flesh and blood of these treaties. We now have a crisscross of treaties and the absurdity of S.E.A.T.O. saying at Wellington that it would have close links with the Bagdad Pact. What reality is there now in the Bagdad Pact?

While the Quemoy incident was on, where was there power as never before? While we were debating in the House of Commons—as it happened, while I was in the United States—there were six "flat tops", as the Americans call them. cruising up and down the Straits of Taiwan with enough power in nuclear weapons on one of them to be greater than all the bombs dropped during the last war. This is the reality of man.

Our eyes are now on the Foreign Ministers' Conference. We must have the summit talks. Whatever else happens, Asia is looking at the Foreign Ministers' talks and looks to the summit talks. The quivering peace in South-East Asia is. in my belief, not helped by the present foreign policy of Britain. I hope that the Americans will not get me wrong about this—I like the American people, have been grateful for their hospitality and have entertained scores of them here —but the British nation has much still to contribute to the world in our steady common sense that we can apply to world problems. We have been acting as W.O. Is. to the American State Department.

I am tired of this activity of the British Government. I sincerely hope that the time will come when we denounce all this "brinkmanship" in South-East Asia, demand that we look at the whole set-up in this alphabet of pacts and get back to what is, for all its imperfections, the only human institution we have—the United Nations—and not build up these subsidiary pacts, which allegedly are built up under the United Nations, whereas anyone who takes the trouble to go to the United Nations and follow closely the debates can see that the lines of debate are clearly marked by the alliances which have been built up.

In my remaining seven or eight minutes, I want to deal with another aspect. An article in The Times of 5th May which was criticised by some people—by the Korean Embassy and others—carried the title "Asia facing all ways" and said: Democracy is not winning in Asia today. There are too many military pacts with too much emphasis on bases and arms and too little emphasis on the rehabilitation of the people and their economy. Here is my quotation from the newspaper: Asia is a bag of marbles: shake it up, and any colour may fall on the floor. Any colour may fall on the floor because, as the writer pointed out, democracy was not winning. It is not winning because we are emphasising the military pacts rather than the economic rehabilitation of the people.

If we shake the bag of marbles and a red one drops out, the British Government have only themselves and the Americans to thank for the build-up of Communism in Far-East Asia. Any analysis of the evolution of Asia since the Second World War points out that the type of revolutionary movements that have taken place there are part of the logical development of the history of Asia. Its peoples, seeing Western films equipment, impedimenta and standards of living are not satisfied. They want to raise their standards of life. In wanting to increase their standards of life, there is a yearning and an urge to change their systems of Government. When that yearning and urge arises, why always dub it "Communism"? Granted that it can be used by Communism, but we have lacked intelligence in acquiescing in this phraseology and the use of "subversion", for instance, in the S.E.A.T.O. Pact.

The economic agencies in Asia overlap. The waste of manpower is pathetic. The Colombo Plan, the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, Truman's Point Four and the Bank for International Reconstruction all mean good will and represent a desire to see the uplift of Asian man. They are crisscrossing and working themselves to death in a climate in which it is difficult to work, and what is the ultimate result? The United States annual investment in South-East Asia in security is in the neighbourhood of 5,000 million dollars or more. What do we get for it? Security? There is no security in South-East Asia for this vast investment. If this money had been put into dams, hydro-electric schemes, hastening the Mekong River basin scheme, subsidising food on a different basis, or helping to get irrigation schemes going, we would have done better.

What are we supposed to have in security? We say that they are our allies, and that they will be strongly with us. How easily men forget. Have we forgotten how Singapore collapsed like a rotten egg at the first noise of Japanese planes, when we were fighting almost alone and the Japanese decided to attack us in Singapore? This was the mighty base of which the Daily Mail said, thirty years ago, in a big headline, "Security in South-East Asia." We spent tens of millions of pounds on it, and it cracked because the people in Asia did not believe in the philosophy of the white man. We are repeating this mistake today.

The Soviet challenge in Asia is not being met at all. Not only are they providing oil research for India and have just put in a steel blast furnace in India, but they are giving loans at 2½ per cent., while we seem to be making our loans to our allies in South-East Asia with strings attached. What is the result of our lending? Here it is, in the per capita amount of food consumed in that area. If we take a compass and spin it over a map of Asia from Afghanistan to Borneo, we find that the amount of food consumed per head in Asia is less than it was in 1938.

This is the policy that is destroying democracy. The Americans know it and the American intelligence service knows is. Ours, which is the best informed in the world, also knows it, and the more we try to point that out, the more we get nods of agreement and shrugs. What we need is a complete reorientation of our policy in that part of the world. As an Indian newspaper said last week, it is Goodbye to Kipling and all that, goodbye to the old contemptuously dutiful attitude towards the lesser breeds without the law. It is as dead as the dodo, both in the Conservative Party and in the Labour Party. Neither party is making that point any longer, though the party opposite believes in it, and perhaps some of them still do, like the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who sits opposite me most days, and who wanted a gunboat policy in respect of Suez.

Writing hymns in praise of N.A.T.O. is sheer blasphemy. Why not write one in praise of democracy? Why not write one in praise of S.E.A.T.O. next? Wordsworth wrote one in praise of the Congress of Vienna. Let us get down to concrete things and build up the standard of life, which now, after nearly fifteen years since the war, is lower than it was in 1938. While the so-called Christian still uses the Pacific Ocean to exploit his hydrogen bombs, how can we expect the Asian to believe in his Christian world?

When the Asian appeals to the United Nations when his hair is dropping out, and when he is shifted off the Marshall Islands, the rest of the world does not hear very much about it. One thing we do know is that, reading between the lines of E.C.A.F.E. reports, we see that the economy of Asia is warped for the purposes of the cold war.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mr. Harold Davies

Resources in the E.C.A.F.E. region are still unexploited. Here is an adventure for men. Why could not the money we spend on military bases be used on damming mighty rivers like the Mekong. draining river bases, draining and harvesting fens, building roads and highways? In that way we could win the Asians and attain more security than we can get with all our bases.

There is a great lack of capital in that area. There are 1,500 million people living in the arc between Afghanistan and Borneo. Nearly three times more people in that area have to be supported on one unit of cultivated land than are supported on one unit anywhere else in the world; there are three times more people per unit of cultivated land. We are seeing one of the most dramatic incidents in the history of man. Every year in that area there are 25 million more mouths to be fed, but they are getting guns instead of butter—and we hope to win their souls for the free world.

These are, perhaps, emotional phrases which are uttered sometimes, so I turn to some views expressed and which I read this week in a journal devoted to foreign affairs about the art of foreign policy: The realist in foreign policy is, first and foremost, a man of action, one who sees foreign policy not simply as a matter for academic discussion, but as something vital to the conduct of national affairs in the world. He advocates a policy based on an honest and informed appraisal of cold facts of international life— not influenced by his dreams, not influenced by his wishes and his aspirations. This is exactly what we are not doing.

It is a dream, reflected in some of the speeches we hear from the opposite side of the House, to think that we can split China from the Soviet Union. It is a dream to think that we can do what the Americans are still trying to do—refuse to recognise 600 million Chinese. That is against anything taught to any diplomat who has been trained in the art of foreign policy. It is a dream to think that we can get a viable world if we bypass all those people and ignore the living flesh and blood of 600 million Chinese. It is a dream to expect a counter-revolution from Chiang-KaiShek to succeed. It is a dream to think that in the event of war in South-East Asia Britain and America will get the solid support we want.

We had better wake up. It is wishful thinking and dangerous to try to drag these charming people into the battle of the Great Powers to end the cold war between Russia, America and Britain. Let us, therefore, start again and reassess the situation. Let us get China into the United Nations.

Consider the charming people of Vietnam. I know them in the North and 1 know them in the South. The Bamboo Curtain between the North and the South is harder than the Iron Curtain between East and West. On both sides people live in quivering peace. Now Japan is to give reparations to the South and not to the North. That is against the whole of the Geneva Treaty concept, and it must be looked into.

We have difficulties. Mr. Speaker, in getting some Questions past the Table, because we are told that though Britain is co-Chairman of the International Supervisory Commission the Foreign Secretary merely receives reports of the Commission. That Commission is given reports. I want to praise the work the Commission does. I have met the men and women working for it, who are devoted to their work and who are holding the balance of peace. They include Canadians, Poles, Indians, and some of our people are working with them, and a very difficult and thankless task they have.

We have had cases presented to the Commission of the breaking of the Geneva concepts. Nothing seems to be done. All we have to do, we are told is to receive the reports. It would be interesting some day to obtain them all and see the total of these violations. I have them. On both sides of the Bamboo Curtain there have been violations of the Treaty. In the interests of the public the truth should be told. The eighth interim report of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam expresses its grave concern about the position.

Could not the co-Chairmen, Britain and Russia, plus the United States try once again to get these people together? It now needs another Geneva Conference for the Indo-China area so that the two sides may be brought together as is suggested in paragraph 13 of that report to consider first the question of war graves, a simple, human question. That might be one way of getting the two sides talking together, as we hope to get East and West talking together.

I am asked either to praise or denounce the Phu Loi prison, but what is the truth? The South Vietnamese did not want to lose face, as they said, but it would have been wise to have allowed the International Commission into the prison. I went there and was allowed to take photographs when slogans proclaiming "Down with Communism" were displayed there. There are flowers growing everywhere, men working—though I did not see much occupational therapy—and the food was much better than could be obtained in the villages. But something happened there. All I can say is that the prison met the requirements of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of detainees.

It would have been much wiser if someone had been allowed to go into the prison at the time and if a British representative, as one of the co-Chairmen with the Russians, had said, "We have a right, under the Geneva Convention of 1954. to investigate the position." The truth then would have been there for the world to see. At any rate, 1 was grateful for the opportunity of visiting the place.

I sincerely hope that too much pressure will not be brought on Laos and some of the other small countries like Cambodia in Indo-China to join S.E.A.T.O. Both sides of the House, Labour and Conservative, had better take another look at our policy in South-East Asia. It needs a clean sweep. At present, we are treading a path which might lead to destruction rather than a constructive building up of mankind in that part of the world so as to lead to peace.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Baird (Wolverhampton, North East)

I should like first, to pay a compliment to the work of our diplomats in South-East Asia and especially in North Vietnam which I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) two years ago. There we have a diplomat, Mr. Simpson, the consul in charge of all British affairs in North Vietnam, doing a very responsible job with no official recognition at all. He had a vice-consul at Haiphong, but they were the only British diplomats in the whole of the country.

We have an ambassador in Saigon. Why is it not possible for us to recognise the North Vietnam Government, at least de facto? At the time of the Geneva conference, after the victory of North Vietnam, at Dien Bien Phu, it might have been possible for the North Vietnamese to sweep the French into the sea. They preferred peace and there were negotiations with the North as well as with South Vietnam. It would have facilitated greatly the work of our diplomats in North Vietnam if they had been given some official recognition. It would have meant, of course, that we would have had a de facto chargé d'affaires for Vietnam here as well. Anything which builds understanding and trade between nations is a good thing, and I do not see why it cannot be done.

I want to speak expressly about Vietnam today because I tried recently to ask a Question in the House about the alleged American military build-up in Laos since the Control Commission was withdrawn. The Table referred me to an Answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 18th February, when I asked what was the military build-up in Vietnam. In a supplementary question I asked: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Control Commission will he given every facility to visit South Vietnam to see whether or not this Agreement has been broken? The answer was: We cannot give any facilities to the Control Commission. That must be done by the two countries concerned. I then said: But, surely, the Foreign Secretary is responsible, as Joint Chairman of the Geneva Conference, for the functioning of the Control Commission? The answer was: That is not one of his functions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February. 1959; Vol. 446, c. 365.] We, along with the U.S.S.R., are joint Chairmen of the Geneva Conference, as a result of which the Control Commission was set up. The Control Commission reports at regular intervals to the joint chairmen. I want to know, therefore, what powers as joint Chairmen we have over the Control Commission. Have we no powers at all, as the Table seems to think in view of that answer? What powers or influence have we over the functioning of the Control Commission? It is important that we should have an answer to that question.

I believe that the situation in South-East Asia is dangerous. If a world war breaks out, it will not be a war immediately between the great Powers, Russia and America. It is likely to start as a local war, and the danger areas of the world, as I see them, are areas such as Vietnam, a small country divided artificially in two, or Korea or Taiwan or Iraq or Algeria. These are the areas where there is danger of a match setting the world aflame and a conflagration arising as a result. Therefore, in the interests of world peace as well as in the interests of the people of those countries, we should be doing all we can to create a more settled atmosphere in those backward areas.

As the House knows, the Geneva Conference met as a result of the wonderful victory of the Vietnam guerillas under the leadership of General Giap and President Ho. At that time the Americans were threatening to use atomic weapons to stop the drive of the Vietnamese to the south. It was our diplomatic intervention which stopped the military intervention of the Americans in Vietnam. Indeed, the only way General Giap and his forces could have been stopped would have been by the use of hydrogen or atomic bombs. Instead, we were able to seize the initiative—we in this country especially, and the Russians—and then the Geneva Conference was called. As a result of the Conference it was agreed between the French, the North Vietnamese, the Russians and ourselves that a Control Commission should go to Vienam, which should function until 1956, when free elections would be held to decide the future government of United Vietnam.

It is true that at that time the French were the responsible Government in South Vietnam. It is true also that since then the French withdrew and handed over their rights and authority to President Diem's government in Saigon. I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary a question which has not yet been answered but which is important. President Diem's government inherited the authority and the rights of the French in South Vietnam. Did they not at the same time also inherit the obligations of the French? If so, the obligations of the French were to see that the Control Commission was allowed to function freely in the territory of South Vietnam and that free elections were held with the support of both the North and the South in 1956.

Yet since then we have had a history of frustration, coming chiefly from the South, and they have sabotaged any possibility of free elections because they say they were not at the Geneva Conference, and, therefore, have no responsibility for the decisions taken there. If they inherited the rights and authority of the French, did they not at the same time inherit their obligations?

Since the Geneva Conference the situation has gone from bad to worse. My information is that there has been a very substantial American military build-up in South Vietnam. I am also told that President Diem's Government committed many atrocities in prison camps and that many thousands of lives have been lost.

The new Government in Laos has asked the Control Commission to withdraw, and it has withdrawn. I am told on the authority of the North Vietnam Government—General Giap sent a letter to the Chairmen of the Geneva Conference and to the Control Commission —that a substantial military build-up is now beginning in Laos also. Is this true or not? How do we know?

The Control Commission is there to inquire into these charges and to report whether they are correct or not. If the hon. Gentleman reads the various Control Commission reports, he will find that in the majority of cases the charges made by the North Vietnam Government have been substantiated. He will also find that time after time the Control Commission, trying to be unbiased, has reported that it cannot give correct information because the South Vietnam Government have refused facilities to its teams to investigate the charges made by North Vietnam. Is there nothing which can be done about it by Her Majesty's Government? Are we to allow the situation to go on drifting?

I asked a Question about the American military build-up, and I was told that we had no authority over the Control Commission in this matter. I also asked for information about the charges of massacre in the Phu Loi concentration camp, and the Answer which I got from the hon. Gentleman was: I have every reason to believe that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman are entirely inaccurate, but if he likes to send me the details I will be glad to look at them."— [OFFIC I AL REPORT, 18th February, 1959; Vol. 600, e. 366.] I had my figures from the North Vietnam Government. Where did the hon. Gentleman get his figures? It could only have been from the South Vietnam Government. If we read the reports of the Control Commission we have to accept the fact that for every time the South Vietnam Government have been correct, the North Vietnam Government have been correct three or four times The North Vietnam Government have been far more accurate in their charges, which have been substantiated in almost every case.

Why have we not had free elections? We are told that the North Vietnam Government is a Communist Government, and that one cannot get free elections in a Communist country.

Is it not a fact that the North Vietnam Government have said time and time again that they are willing to see that the elections are supervised by the Control Commission, by an enlarged Control Commission if need be, to guarantee genuinely free elections? Why have the elections not been held? Is not the honour of Her Majesty's Government at stake in this matter, because, as Joint Chairman with the Russians of the Geneva Conference, we promised the Vietnamese people that they would have free elections.

Mr. Speaker

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but the debate has now continued for forty-two minutes, and if the Minister is to reply, he will have only ten minutes left.

Mr. Baird

I have been speaking for only ten minutes, but I am about to finish.

We have an Ambassador in Saigon. Have we no way of representing our point of view to the South Vietnam Government on this matter of free elections and the function of the Control Commission? Have we no influence with our American allies who are the major factor in the situation?

I conclude by saying that our honour is at stake and that it is not enough to give Smart Alick answers about the North Vietnam Communist Government. We want the Control Commission to be given facilities to function properly and free elections to be held as soon as possible.

4.22 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan)

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) apologised for raising it at the beginning of the holiday. I am, nevertheless, very glad to be here, because I know about his trip and I know that he was a very welcome guest in that part of the world. I was glad to hear something of what he discovered during his trip. I have also had the opportunity of talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins), who, unfortunately, could not be here this afternoon.

The hon. Member raised very large subjects and I do not think that he expects me, in eight minutes, to try to answer completely the very wide debate which he opened. Perhaps I can answer some of the smaller factual points first. He was good enough to tell me in advance that he might be raising some of these matters.

I thank him and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) for the tributes which they have paid to our Foreign Service representatives abroad. As both hon. Members said they work under difficult conditions, difficult not only politically but physically, and any tribute paid to them is well justified.

The hon. Member for Leek began by talking about buildings in that part of the world. We have been unhappy about the Embassy offices in Saigon for some time, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that we have now got provision to build new offices, which will be undertaken by the Ministry of Works through its Overseas Building Vote. The Embassy will be built at the Norodom site, where our Consulate-General was before it was destroyed. Planning of those offices is going ahead, although it will be some little time before actual work starts. I am glad to tell the hon. Member that all the offices will be air-conditioned.

The hon. Member also mentioned Vientiane. He probably saw that there we already have some substantial building progress under way. The previous offices were held on rent from the Laotian Government and were very unsatisfactory, and it was inevitable, under the circumstances of the time, that our staff had to live in unsuitable accommodation. The new buildings going up there now will be air-conditioned and I think that that post will be much more attractive when they are finished.

The hon. Member talked about allowances paid by the Ministry of Works. That is a question for my right hon. Friend and I will ask for an answer. The hon. Member said that Foreign Office allowances were not enough to permit our representatives to give the same sort of hospitality which was provided by their colleagues. I will say only that, particularly for those in Phnom Penh, this matter is now being discussed with the Treasury and I hope that it will be possible to make some alterations.

The hon. Gentleman then launched into a great attack on S.E.A.T.O. It is all very well for him to say that the organisation was built up simply because it was an American answer to the Geneva Agreements which the Americans did not like and would not take part in. But the hard fact is that S.E.A.T.O. has been one of the main props which have maintained the Geneva settlement, because it gives a general sense of stability to the whole area. It is not an aggressive pact; it is completely defensive. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may think about it, no effort at all has been made to encourage either Laos or Cambodia or South Vietnam to join it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has actually stated that. Indeed, it would be quite contrary to the conditions of the Geneva Agreement which debars them from joining.

The hon. Gentleman said that we were bringing pressure to bear on those countries to join. It is just not true. He then asked how one could distinguish between subversion and a nationalistic movement. Of course it is difficult, but if there is a movement which is aided and abetted from outside and which seeks to overthrow the lawful Government, then it is fair enough to call that subversion. Even the hon. Gentleman would not call the Communist effort in Malaya a nationalistic movement. It was subversion. It is that sort of thing which the S.E.A.T.O. Powers had in mind when they were discussing the matter. They did not set up any organization, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to deal with subversion. All they said was that they would have another meeting to discuss the matter. There is no organization to counter subversion in the sort of way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also made a great song and dance about all the money that was going into the military side of things in South-East Asia. It is quite absurd to stress it in this way, as though the Western Powers are particularly concerned with building armaments in South-East Asia. In fact—I am talking about the United Kingdom alone—up to 30th June, 1958, the total amount of assistance given by the United Kingdom though the Colombo Plan in loans and other forms was £123¼ million. In the same period the technical assistance provided by the United States for the Colombo Plan countries throughout the South-East Asian area has amounted to nearly 4,000 million dollars.

These are tremendous figures and are all in connection with economic aid of one sort and another. All this money is channeled through the Colombo Plan. I do not want to go into that matter in detail, but I want to refute the suggestion made that all these organizations were overlapping and that there was resulting inefficiency.

Mr. Harold Davies

They are in an awful state.

Mr. Allan

It is not true. As I say, all the economic aid is channeled through the Colombo Plan

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. It is primarily not an executive agency for carrying out these things but a planning agency. Therefore, its functions do not overlap the Colombo Plan. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Mekong Valley development, which is a splendid thing, and Her Majesty's Government are making a substantial contribution to the Economic Commission for that project.

We got on to the question of the position of this country, of my right hon. and learned Friend as co-Chairman. We in this country have no more obligations than any other signatory to the Geneva Pact. Incidentally, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman recognised the work of Sir Anthony Eden. It really was a great thing. I must repeat that we have no responsibility as co-Chairman.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till Tuesday, 2nd June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.