§ Q2. Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the situation in Vietnam, in view of the most recent developments in that country.
§ The Prime MinisterI have at this stage nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on 29th June.
§ Mr. NewensMay I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? Does he not recognise that the close identification of Britain with American policies in Vietnam means that Britain's ability to act as a mediator is severely restricted? Will he, therefore, make it clear that the call by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for restraint on the part of the combatants means that Britain is opposed to further bombing raids by the Americans on North Vietnam?
§ The Prime MinisterWhile thanking my hon. Friend for his thanks—[Interruption.]—I should make it plain that the Mission was decided upon by the Commonwealth as a whole and that the Mission will represent the Commonwealth as a whole and not the individual views of individual members of the Commonwealth or individual members of the Mission. Our appeal for restraint to all concerned was addressed both in terms of the bombing of North Vietnam and of the infiltration from North Vietnam to the South. We made it specifically as a request to enable the Mission to do its work when the Mission takes off. I think that the reaction of particular countries to which this request was addressed will depend very much on the degree to which the Mission is able to take off, in terms of the response we get from all the parties to the dispute to enable us to visit the countries concerned.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWhile I would not dispute for a moment what the Prime Minister has said, will he recognise how greatly any progress towards a political settlement will be prejudiced if every diplomatic exchange that takes place gets into the newspapers in full?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, but the diplomatic exchanges have not come from any representatives of this country. As for the general issue, I am sure that the whole House will now recognise that, as the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference stated flatly last week, the problem of Vietnam cannot be solved by military means; that this is not an issue that can be solved in terms of victory for one side or the other, and that we have to get those concerned round the table, which was the purpose of the Conmonwealth initiative. While I think that all of us in this House would be prepared to hold up a banner saying "Peace in Vietnam", very few of us would want to hold up a banner saying "Victory in Vietnam".
§ Mr. ParkWould my right hon. Friend agree that the employment of Australian troops in an offensive capacity in Vietnam is hardly conducive to the success of the Commonwealth Mission? Would he, perhaps, remind the Prime Minister of Australia that there is no military solution to the problem?
§ The Prime MinisterThe reason why the Commonwealth is in a unique position to take an initiative is that it is well known, both among the 21 Commonwealth countries and in the world as a whole, that we represent almost every conceivable view among ourselves about the responsibility for the position in Vietnam. Nevertheless, we have agreed to send this Mission. If it is received, this does not mean that any individual country has to change its position. It means that those who go on behalf of the Mission represent the united view of the Commonwealth for peace, rather than a diversity of views amongst the countries of the Commonwealth as to who is responsible for the present fighting.