§ Q1. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to President Johnson that Her Majesty's Government cannot support proposals to Hanoi to enter into unconditional negotiations so long as a United States force remains in South Vietnam, since the United Nations Charter prohibits resort to force or threats of force as a means of settling international differences.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)No, Sir. I remain in favour of unconditional negotiations.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIs not the Prime Minister aware that, as he himself has said, unconditional negotiations leave the Americans free to propose anything they like, and to threaten the renewal of hostilities if they do not get what they want?
§ The Prime MinisterIn essence, all unconditional negotiation means is that any party in the negotiations can make proposals, but I feel that if we were to start recommending the attaching of conditions such as my hon. Friend suggests it would be inimical to the prospects of getting the parties round the conference table.
§ Q2. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government, in their capacity as co-chairman under the 1954 393 Geneva Agreement, will reject any proposal for treating the provisional military demarcation line in Vietnam as a territorial or political boundary, which is inconsistent with the agreement.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. Our aim is to bring the fighting in Vietnam to an end in conditions which give as many as possible of the people of Vietnam who wish to live in peace the chance to do so. It is not our purpose to insist at this stage on conditions which in the event may hamper rather than help that objective.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIs not this country a party to the 1954 Geneva Agreement which provides that Vietnam is one country, the unity of which must be respected, and is not the Prime Minister prepared to live up to that treaty obligation?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is precisely because my right hon. Friend is co-chairman under the 1954 Agreement that he has been pressing very hard during his recent visit to North America for unconditional negotiations to bring an end to the fighting. We have declared our view a number of times that any final settlement must be consistent with the 1954 Agreement, but if my hon. Friend is using the 1954 Agreement as a reason for not having unconditional negotiations I cannot think that his advice is tending towards the best and quickest road to peace.
§ Mr. DoughtyDoes the Prime Minister agree that, difficult as it is to get these negotiations going under the 1954 treaty, they would be even more difficult if it was sought to impose pre-conditions of this kind?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is what I said. Of course, it is not only the 1954 Agreement that is in question, but the 1962 Agreement. That is why my right hon. Friend made plain, in what I think was one of the clearest sets of proposals for ending this fighting, that we want to see not only the end of the bombing but of the infiltration, and my right hon. Friend set forth some very clear proposals both for the means of getting to the conference table and what, perhaps, might happen thereafter.
§ Mr. WinnickWhile the war continues, would it be possible for the Prime Minister 394 to ask President Johnson to have respect for the feelings of humanity about the way the war is being conducted by the Americans? Is he aware of the growing horror at the way the Americans are using napalm and other means of killing?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have said many times—and I am aware of the growing horror, which I share—the longer the war takes there will be horrible things done on all sides. That is why it is the duty of all concerned to get to the conference table as quickly as possible. When my hon. Friend refers, as he did in an earlier Question, to the United Nations, it is the grim fact that the authorities in Hanoi do not regard this as a matter for settlement by the United Nations. I hope that they will change their mind on that. Her Majesty's Government have made it plain, as did the whole Commonwealth, that we believe that the bombing should cease and, in return, a stop be made to infiltration and the measures taken by the other side in this war.
§ Lord BalnielIs it not a fact that the United States have also offered a timed and phased withdrawal of troops provided the Vietnamese do the same? Could not the Prime Minister make that fact clearly known to his hon. Friend behind him?
§ The Prime MinisterAll the facts in the matter are well known. It is a fact also that my right hon. Friend has put forward proposals which so far have not been accepted by Hanoi. I hope that they will be. I am not sure that we will necessarily advance the cause of getting the parties round the conference table if we pursue the matter in too much detail. I would rather leave things to follow up the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend.