§ Q1. Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if he will seek the earliest opportunity to visit Peking and discuss peace in Vietnam with the Chinese Government; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)I would be willing to consider any step which might lead to peace in Vietnam but the immediate need is for an indication of readiness to negotiate on the part of Peking and Hanoi, particularly the latter.
§ Sir C. OsborneIs not the Prime Minister aware that millions of Americans, like Senator Fulbright, are convinced that the war will not be brought to an end by bombs and bullets alone, and that no peace talks can be successful unless Peking is in agreement with those talks? Would it not be worth his while to take even a 100 to one chance of going there to see what he can do?
§ The Prime MinisterAll of us have said many times in recent debates that this war will not be settled by a military solution and that negotiations are necessary. That was what all last year's arguments were about. But the hon. Gentleman should recognise that those American Senators who have proposed talks on the lines that many of us have suggested have been very scornfully treated by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Press, and the answer really does lie in Hanoi rather than Peking.
§ Mr. Michael FootWill not the Prime Minister agree that one of the most serious aspects of the present situation is the proposed intensification of the war, chiefly by American air power and also by the addition of great American forces in Vietnam? What representations has he made to the United States Government in the past two weeks about this proposed intensification of the war?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have already told the House, we have made perfectly clear our attitude if the intensification were to lead to the bombing of the big cities, Hanoi and Haiphong.
§ Q5. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister, in view of the opening of negotiations by the Indonesian Government with a view to ending their policy of confrontation, whether he will give an assurance that the British forces still in Malaysia will be brought home and demobilised on the ending of the confrontation with Indonesia, and will not in any circumstances be sent to Vietnam; 1118 and if he will take steps to inform President Johnson to this effect.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave to similar Questions on 3rd May.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIn view of the development of the situation since May, could not my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that in no circumstances will British forces either from Malaysia or elsewhere be sent to Vietnam?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are, in fact, still in the month of May, and it was on 3rd May that I gave a categorical assurance. This Question relates partly to Indonesia, and my reply related to troops released from Indonesia if, happily, we see the end of confrontation, and to any other forces.
§ Q6. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued escalation of the conflict in Vietnam, including the building up of land forces, the practice of saturation bombing in the south and the use of B52 bombers and the bombing of industrial installations in the north, Her Majesty's Government will withdraw their support for United States military action in that country.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 26th April.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIn view of the failure over a long time of his policy of privately working for peace in Washington while publicly supporting the war in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend now abandon that policy, oppose the war in Vietnam and thereby at least do something effetive for peace?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government have always opposed the war in Vietnam. That is why we have sought to get those concerned round the conference table. The refusal to come to the conference table did not come from Washington.
§ Q7. Mr. Norwoodasked the Prime Minister what British-made arms licensed for export are in use in the Vietnam conflict; and to what extent additional shipments of British-made arms are being 1119 made to Australia as the result of the Australian Government's participation in the conflict.
§ The Prime MinisterNo licences have been granted for the export of arms to Vietnam. We do not normally disclose information about arms exports, but in this case I can say that shipments to Australia have not increased as the result of her participation in the Vietnam conflict.
§ Mr. NorwoodWill my right hon. Friend accept that that reply affords some satisfaction? Would not he agree that, even at this comparatively unimportant level, it is of great importance for this country that we do not become, however indirectly, involved in the conflict in any way?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are not supplying arms directly or indirectly for the fighting in Vietnam. But perhaps I should make it clear, in view of the Government's special position as co-Chairman, that our fellow co-Chairman is supplying arms on a very considerable scale for use in Vietnam.
§ Mr. GoodhartDoes the right hon. Gentleman intend to give any support to the large and valiant Commonwealth forces now engaged in fighting in Vietnam?
§ The Prime MinisterIf by that the hon. Gentleman means, "Are we going to join them by sending troops?", I remind him that I answered that question when it was put two weeks ago.
§ Q12. Mrs. Anne Kerrasked the Prime Minister whether he will now withdraw support for United States military efforts in Vietnam, in view of the policy of the Government of South Vietnam expressed in an official statement by Marshal Ky that elections in South Vietnam will be delayed until 1967 and that a resulting Communist or a neutralist government would be opposed with military force.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave earlier today to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus).
§ Mrs. KerrDoes my right hon. Friend appreciate that American attempts to 1120 bolster the Government of Marshal Ky are not dissimilar from what would have been the situation had the Nazis occupied England from a line drawn—
§ Mrs. Kerr—between Anglesey and the Wash and then, with the connivance of a puppet Government, had bombed Northern England, Glasgow and Edinburgh? Moreover, I would ask
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot have a speech at Question Time. The hon. Lady must be concise.
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend's question is extremely fanciful as to geography and totally misleading, if I understand her rather complicated analogy aright, in drawing any kind of similarity between the Nazis and the United States at the present time. Her analogy further broke down in its reference to the bombing of Glasgow and Edinburgh, because the United States has not been bombing Hanoi and Haiphong.
§ Mr. Michael FootBut does not my right hon. Friend remember that it was Marshal Ky himself who drew the comparison? Does he think that the Ky régime is upholding democracy in South-East Asia?
§ The Prime MinisterIn our recent foreign affairs debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government hold no brief for views expressed by Marshal Ky or for some actions by successive South Vietnamese Governments. The point is that we want to bring the war to an end by bringing all concerned to the conference table.
§ Mr. MartenIn view of some of the rather barbed questions from the benches behind him, could the Prime Minister just say now, quite clearly, that he does support American policy in Vietnam?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is getting an obsession about my hon. Friends. [Laughter.] If he was sitting at his place, and few attend more regularly than the hon. Gentleman, he will have heard me and my right hon. Friends express support for United States policy over a very long period of time. He will also recall that on a number of occasions we have mentioned schemes 1121 and ideas for bringing this war to an end, only to earn the opposition and derision of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. MolloyWill the Prime Minister realise that there is not a great deal of comfort to be drawn from the fact that the Americans have not yet bombed Hanoi or Haiphong? Is he aware that we are concerned that this escalation may continue and that this will happen, in which case we shall be in the very grave difficulty of trying to stop what might be an escalation to a world war?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not drawing comfort from that fact. I was trying to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) from drawing false parallels. That is why I said what I did on that particular point. As we have said many times, as long as this war goes on it carries tremendous dangers of escalation, perhaps far beyond the soil of Vietnam. This is why we keep pressing to get the parties to the conference table.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsIs it not clear that there could be peace tomorrow in Vietnam if the Communists would cease their aggression? Is it not clear that the United States is willing to go to the conference table but the Communists are not?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have expressed the position, and I would rather do it in the form of words we have used rather than the shorter form exercised by the hon. Gentleman. Certainly the position is that the only people, as far as I can see, who are unwilling to go to the conference table are the North Vietnamese. I would not want to lump them generically with other Communist countries. I think there might be a desire in some countries to see a conference in due course, but so far they have not agreed to come to the conference table. I hope that they will.
§ Mr. RoseIn view of the perfidious attack by supporters of Marshal Ky upon Buddhists in Da Nang this week, would the Prime Minister seek some clarification of the position of the Government of South Vietnam with regard to the holding of free elections?
§ The Prime MinisterThe question of free elections was raised in a previous 1122 Question this afternoon, and it is our understanding that it is intended to proceed first to an interim stage and then to free elections at a later stage, probably next year. I have made quite plain that our attitude to the question of Vietnam is not dependent on what we may or may not think of individual Ministers of the Government of South Vietnam, including the Prime Minister. There are far bigger issues at stake and all of them could be solved if the parties would get to the conference table.