§ Mr. Paget (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the efforts of Her Majesty"s Government to produce a peaceful solution in Vietnam in the light of the declared intention of the American Government to extend the war without limit, and their use of gas.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is discussing this question against the background of the whole Vietnam situation with the American Secretary of State, and is also 325 today meeting the President. I would prefer to await the outcome of these meetings before saying anything further.
§ Mr. PagetIn view of certain activities, will not my right hon. Friend say that a preference for high explosive as against anaesthesia seems a somewhat odd expression of anti-Americanism? As it seems quite plain that a removal of American troops from this area would only adjourn the conflict to the next objective, will not my right hon. Friend say that our allies have our full support in seeking to convince North Vietnam and the Vietcong that aggression does not pay and that negotiations should be begun?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not going to follow my hon. and learned Friend into the argument about explosives, gas, napalm, or any of those questions. I have on many occasions stated our position about the fighting in Vietnam. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see a lasting, effective and peaceful settlement of this situation. That is why my right hon. Friend is in Washington.
§ Mr. HoosonIs the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread apprehension in this country about the use of gas by our allies and that this is by no means confined to one section of the community or one political view? Is the Foreign Secretary making representations as to the danger of the extension of the use of gas? If it is used by one side and then the other, this thing can spiral up to a world conflict in no time.
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the use of gas or napalm, but they are equally concerned about the whole question of fighting in this area. Any views we may have of this matter are better expressed through my right hon. Friend to the American Government rather than by statements made in this House.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIs the Prime Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I very much agree with what he has said about the place to talk about this? The Foreign Secretary should talk to the Secretary of State and the President in the United States. The word "gas" arouses great emotions and great fears after our experience in the First 326 World War, but does not the Prime Minister"s information so far confirm that this is not a noxious gas, in the sense of the terms of The Hague Convention, but rather one of the varieties of tear gas which is used in civil disturbances?
§ The Prime MinisterSo far as I have received any information on this matter it confirms what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as not being in contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1925 or any other convention. But I am sure that the whole House will agree that any bringing in of new weapons, or any extension of the war in any way, adds to the changes which I have mentioned at previous Question times.
This fighting has changed entirely in kind as well as degree, and, therefore, carries with it all the time greater dangers. That is why it is important, particularly after certain disappointments last week, for an initiative to be taken to try to get a lasting and robust peace, to guarantee freedom in that part of the world.
§ Mr. ShinwellIn view of the difficulties that have so far presented themselves in promoting a solution to the Vietnam problem, is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the initiative so far taken by Her Majesty"s Government? But did the United States Government inform Her Majesty"s Government or the Foreign Secretary—or my right hon. Friend himself—that it was their intention to use napalm bombs and gas in this conflict?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the question of negotiations and initiative, as my right hon. Friend will know, we proposed to the Soviet Foreign Minister last week a joint initiative by the two co-chairmen. This was rejected. I would have thought that the position now is that if the two-co-chairman cannot go ahead there is a duty on us to take the initiative with a view to effecting a peaceful and lasting solution to the whole Vietnam problem. My right hon. Friend is discussing in Washington the most fruitful basis on which this initiative can be taken.
The answer to the second part of my right hon. Friend"s supplementary question is "No".
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonCan the Prime Minister confirm that the United States has not ratified the Geneva Protocol? 327 Having asked that, may I go on to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that everyone will agree with what he said about the seriousness of the situation? Finally, is he aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House, having noted that the grave question of the use of gas has been taken up by hon. Members on the benches opposite, will be glad of their support in any protests we may make against the use of lethal gas by Egyptian forces in the Yemen?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member is right in saying that the United States has not ratified that Convention. I note his second point, and hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will condemn the use of lethal gas as banned by the Geneva Convention. There surely cannot be any doubt about that.
§ Mr. MendelsonWith reference to my right hon. Friend"s remark about the Government"s work in trying to create a basis for negotiations, has it not now become clear, in the light of recent diplomatic discussions in London and elsewhere, that it is a positive hindrance to our efforts that we should be so completely identified with all the military actions and statements made by the United States in recent weeks?
Would it not now be helpful to my right hon. Friend"s efforts, which we all support [Laughter.]—unlike hon. Members opposite—if he would now express the deep feelings of many millions of people in this country in dissociating the British Government from attacks using napalm gas and the recent destruction of a school which cost the lives of 45 children? Would not he now do better to declare firmly that the statement made by General Taylor that there is no limit does not receive the support of Her Majesty"s Government?
§ The Prime MinisterI am afraid that a lot of children have been killed both in North and South Vietnam during this fighting. This is the reason for all of us to do everything in our power to get this matter settled on a satisfactory basis. I do not accept that our ability to help to produce that kind of settlement is affected by what my hon. Friend has said. We always understood, from the time when the co-chairmen were first appointed, that one of them would be in the Eastern camp and one in the Western camp.
328 I have seen no sign at all that the Soviet co-chairman showed any inhibitions about expressing his support for his allies in this matter, and we have shown no inhibitions, either. I do not believe, nevertheless, and I said this to Mr. Gromyko, that, though there are these difficulties, they should stop us acting on those points on which, I hope, we are agreed, namely, on seeing what are the next steps which will lead to a settlement. So far, we have not had a positive response.
My hon. Friend referred, in the last few words of his question, to a statement, reported in certain newspapers this morning, which is attributed to General Taylor. This is, of course, a matter on which we must seek further elucidation, and we are so doing, because it uses phrases about carrying on the war without limit which, I think, go considerably further than anything which I have told the House, after establishing the facts before I did so.
I think that one must be concerned to find what the facts are. I will not say here and now that this has been said by General Maxwell Taylor. We must investigate these statements and get a proper account. Only 10 days ago The Times carried a scare story on its main page about American attitudes, which turned out to be completely false and which was denied, with reference to The Times" story, the following day in Washington.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot debate these matters now.