LAOS

HC Deb 30 March 1961 vol 637 cc1519-22

44. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent talks with President Kennedy on the situation in Laos.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I have been asked to reply.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, no doubt, have seen the communiqué which was issued after this meeting. The talks were, of course, confidential. But the House will have noted that there was full agreement that the proposals we have recently put to the Soviet Government would, if implemented, pave the way for Laos to become a truly neutral country and that President Kennedy and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed the strong hope that the Soviet Union will make a positive and constructive reply to these proposals.

Mr. Henderson

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the value of this meeting rests on the emphasis which was laid by both heads of Government on the need for a peaceful political settlement rather than for military intervention? Is he aware that many people will be glad that this lead was followed by the S.E.A.T.O. Conference on Friday in avoiding any decision in favour of recommending direct military intervention?

Mr. Butler

I would say that generally the answer is "Yes, Sir" to both the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is naturally hoped that there will be a satisfactory outcome from these discussions and from the British initiative.

Mr. Healey

While endorsing the right hon. Gentleman's hope, may I ask whether it is true, as is suggested in The Times today, that President Kennedy's statement last Thursday in which he indicated the possibility of military intervention by S.E.A.T.O. into the affairs of Laos, was made before consultation, and without consultation with Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler

I do not think I can answer for President Kennedy in this House, and I should like notice of that question.

45. Mr. Zilliacus

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Bangkok on 27th March about the situation in Laos represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

47. Mr. Emrys Hughes

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Bangkok on 27th March on the situation in Laos represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I have been asked to reply.

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary in that speech advocated a policy of armed intervention to put down a revolt in Laos against a reactionary dictatorship, armed, paid and imposed by the United States? Is he further aware that this policy would be contrary to the United Nations Charter which forbids intervention in the internal affairs of other countries or resort to force without the authorisation of the Security Council? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will in no circumstances transgress this obligation of the Charter to refer any alleged threat to international peace to the United Nations Security Council before taking armed action?

Mr. Butler

I did not read the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman reads into the speech of my noble Friend. It will be seen from the communiqué that the objective of Her Majesty's Government and of her allies in S.E.A.T.O. is to secure the peaceful settlement of the present situation while being prepared for emergencies. This entirely corresponds with my noble Friend's speech.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own speech on the Adjournment the day before yesterday and his own assurance were regarded by us as far more moderate and less bellicose than the speech of the Foreign Secretary? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the impression given by the speech of the Foreign Secretary was that he was prepared in certain circumstances for armed intervention? I should like to know in what circumstances armed intervention in Laos could benefit the people of this country. Why does not the spokesman for the British Government adopt the same attitude as the Government of France and oppose any idea of military intervention at all?

Mr. Butler

As I made clear in my speech in the discussion on the Easter Adjournment, we are governed by our obligations under the Manila Treaty, and that is the extent of our obligation. We must be prepared for emergencies. As I made clear, and as my noble Friend made clear, we hope that there may be a political settlement of a satisfactory character.

Mr. Healey

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that nothing in the Manila Treaty would justify intervention by Her Majesty's Government or any other Government in a civil war inside Laos which is contrary to international law?

Mr. Butler

I must not interpret the legal terms of the Manila Treaty at Question Time, but in general I would agree that the expression "civil war" is rather outside the terms of the Treaty.

Mr. Russell

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that an armed dictatorship imposed by the United States, if indeed it does exist, is preferable to one imposed by the Soviet Union?