§ Q5. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make public representations to the United States of America with a view to their stopping the bombing in Vietnam.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. WinnickDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that the bombing attack on the South Vietnamese village last week amounted to mass murder and that this is happening all the time in bombing raids 1752 on North Vietnam? Since nearly every liberal-minded American in public life has come out against escalation of the war, will not my right hon. Friend do the same, if only for the honour of our country?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend's conception of the honour of the country is not necessarily one that all of us would follow. I have said on many occasions that the Government have a very special responsibility in seeking to end this horrible war, in the course of which some terrible things have happened, including the incident my hon. Friend referred to and some very terrible actions of deliberate, not accidental, murder committed by the other side. I do not believe that peace in Vietnam would be advanced by the course my hon. Friend advocates.
§ Mr. PagetWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, last July, when we dissociated ourselves from American bombing, it did not make much difference to them but that when, a few days later, they dissociated themselves from the £, it made a lot of difference to us? Could we, in future, refrain from such unprofitable exercises?
§ The Prime MinisterAlmost for the first time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has his facts wrong. First, our dissociation was in June, not July. Secondly, there was no dissociation from the £ by the United States Government at any time. Thirdly, it is an insult to President Johnson—I will not say whether it is to me because I am not very much concerned about this—to suggest that our attitude to Vietnam has ever been based on financial considerations. I hope that no hon. Member will suggest as much. We dissociated ourselves last June and our action was understood by the United States. It made no difference in our relationship so far as economic co-operation was concerned.
§ Dr. Ernest A. DaviesIs my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House and many people in the country will applaud him and the Government for their determined and persistent efforts to bring an end to this terrible bloodshed and get the contestants to the conference table?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that this is our duty. I am very glad that this has been said by my hon. Friend. I noted the view of the Leader of the Opposition last weekend, who did not take quite such a constructive view of efforts by the Government to get peace in Vietnam.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonSince we all believe in the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister have due regard to the views of Australia and New Zealand on this very difficult question?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, of course. This was fully discussed with them during the visit of the Prime Minister of Australia last year and at the Commonwealth Conference. The Commonwealth goes more widely now than perhaps the hon. Gentleman understands its geographical coverage.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonI understand that.
§ The Prime MinisterHe will recall that the Commonwealth as a whole, with only one dissentient, proposed in 1965 a Commonwealth peace mission to the capitals of the countries concerned—[Interruption.] It was not a laughing matter, any more than the war in Vietnam is a laughing matter. It was not our fault or that of the Commonwealth that that mission was not accepted. The fact that it was not accepted has continued this bloodshed for two further years, which even hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they stop tittering, will deplore.
§ Mrs. Anne KerrDoes the Prime Minister accept that, so far, the methods used with regard to President Johnson and the American Administration have failed? Secondly, can he explain how he equates, in Ho Chi Minh's words, the "American bandit" with the householder—the Vietnamese people?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not cure that my hon. Friend's slogans will help in this particular matter. I agree that all the efforts which we have made have not yet got the response from Hanoi required to bring peace. If that is what my hon. Friend is concerned about, I am sure that she will use her undoubted influence in that direction to help get peace.
§ Sir John RodgersWhen the Prime Minister is in Canada, will he find time to go to New Zealand to discuss this prob- 1754 lem with the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not exactly next door, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. He will also understand that, last September, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite took a cynical view of the Commonwealth Conference, I had full discussions on these matters with the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia and all others concerned from every point of view of the Vietnam matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister, to answer Question Q1.
§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way at all, when the issue of Vietnam is being raised, for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be made to take the matter seriously?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.