§ Q5. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen on 5th February, regarding non-involvement by the great Powers in South-East Asia, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend's speech, the full text of which is in the Library, did indeed represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. ZilliacusDoes the Prime Minister recollect that in that speech his right hon. Friend proposed that East and West should enter into an agreement to leave South-East Asia alone? Does not that mean neutralisation on the lines proposed by General de Gaulle? How can the Prime Minister reconcile that proposal with the support which he pledged to President Johnson for the American policy of intervention in Vietnam to support a tyranny imposed upon the South Vietnam people by the United States and in violation both of the 1954 Treaty and of the United Nations Charter, to which this country is a party?
§ The Prime MinisterIn answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the American troops are there by invitation of the South Vietnam Government. With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend said "If East and West would leave South-East Asia alone", but if the hon. Member has seen the papers today he will have seen what is happening in Laos and in North Vietnam.
§ Mr. WarbeyIs the Prime Minister aware that the declared policy of the new revolutionary Government in South Vietnam is the extermination of all Communists and neutralists? As this is in direct conflict with the Geneva agreements of 1954, will the Prime Minister explain whether, in signing with President Johnson the agreement to support American policy in South Vietnam, he has himself torn up the Geneva Agreements as a scrap of paper?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. But the whole foundation of the Geneva Agreements was that the integrity and independence of South Vietnam should be recognised.