§ 37. Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government have yet invited the international Commission to enter Laos.
§ Mr. HeathThe Commission has now met in Delhi and completed its initial report which we have not yet received. The Commission is ready to proceed to Laos. The arrangement between the two Co-Chairmen on which the Soviet Government have insisted, however, is that it must await the entry into force of the ceasefire.
§ Mr. HealeyWhilst strongly condemning the continuation of the fighting in Laos now that an appeal for a cease-fire has been issued, in view of the uncertainty about the exact military situation 900 in Laos and the known unreliability of some of the sources of information about that situation, is there not an overwhelming case for getting the International Commission into Laos immediately in order to report on the exact state of affairs?
§ Mr. HeathFor our part we would be very willing for the Control Commission to go straight to Laos, but that is not the view of the other co-Chairman and his Government.
§ 39. Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the situation in Laos, with special reference to the cease-fire arrangements.
§ Mr. HeathA cease-fire has not yet been arranged. On 25th April, Prince Souvanna Phouma, claiming to speak as Prime Minister of Laos, invited the Royal Laotian Government to send representatives to the Pathet Lao Headquarters at Xieng Khouang; while the Royal Laotian Government at the same time invited the Pathet Lao to hold talks at the Royal capital of Luang Prabang which remains in their hands. In order to resolve this deadlock, the Royal Laotian Government then suggested that the other side send military representatives under a flag of truce to Ban Vang Khi between the two lines on the road north of Vientiane. No Pathet Lao representative appeared and the Government reiterated their offer for eight o'clock this morning.
I do not yet know whether this meeting took place. This is doubtful, however, as Prince Souvanna Phouma has now proposed a meeting at another place in the same area of no-man's-land, Ban Na Mon. Unfortunately, he proposes that the purpose of the meeting should be to consider the formation of a government as well as to arrange a cease-fire. This can only lead to delays while difficult political matters are discussed. The purpose of any truce meeting should be to put an immediate stop to the fighting; other internal matters should be left for discussion between the Laotian leaders as soon as the ceasefire is in force. The Royal Government have not yet reacted to this appeal.
As far as the military situation is concerned, the Pathet Lao forces continued their pressure on a number of fronts after the Co-Chairmen's appeal for a 901 cease-fire. Their forces have made gains to the north of Luang Prabang, and in the south of the country they have captured some ground which would facilitate an advance. On the Vientiane sector their recent gains leave them in a position to threaten the capital. While no serious fighting is going on at present, the Pathet Lao appear to be seeking to establish positions from which they could drive forward towards the Mekong River on several sectors if they decided to open an all-out assault, although there is no evidence that this is their intention at present
§ Mr. WarbeyIs not the latest proposal of Prince Souvanna Phouma for a meeting place for cease-fire negotiations a perfectly reasonable and suitable one, and is it at all clear that Prince Souvanna Phouma is insisting that the negotiations for a cease-fire should be conditional upon there being negotiations for the formation of a new Government? Is not all that he is proposing that these matters should be dealt with successively? Therefore, can we not still hope that a cease-fire may very soon be announced; and, in the meantime, will the Lord Privy Seal deprecate all this alarmist talk of U.S. or S.E.A.T.O. intervention?
§ Mr. HeathThe proposal of Prince Boun Oum and General Phoumi Nosavan for a meeting in a place in no man's land in the first instance was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Now that both sides have moved away from their original proposals for a meeting in their respective capitals, Luang Prabang and Xieng Khouang, to two places which are comparatively close together in no man's land, I very much hope that it will be practicable for the two sides to meet. At the same time, I do not think that it will be practicable at this sort of meeting to have discussions on the wider question of a broader-based Government. We believe that the most urgent question is that of cease-fire, and that negotiations between the Laotian political leaders could follow.
§ Mr. P. WilliamsWill my right hon. Friend say whether the statement he did not make on the Congo was longer or shorter than the one he did make on Laos?
§ Mr. HealeyWhile I strongly agree that it would be a great mistake to mix 902 political questions concerned with the future of the Laotian Government with the particularly urgent question of establishing a cease-fire, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the statement made by his noble Friend in another place on Wednesday, namely, that the airlift by Soviet aeroplanes to the Pathet Lao forces had ceased from last Saturday, was contradicted the same day by Mr. Dean Rusk, speaking in Washington? Do the British Government still maintain that the Soviet airlift has stopped?
§ Mr. HeathAs far as we can find out from the best sources of information available to us, the Soviet airlift has been continuing intermittently since the co-Chairmen called for a cease-fire.