§ Q4. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss joint policies designed to end the Vietnam war on his forthcoming visit to Washington
§ The Prime MinisterAs the House knows, I keep in regular contact with President Nixon on Vietnam, and my visit to Washington next week will provide an opportunity for a further exchange of views.
§ Mr. WinnickIs my right hon. Friend aware, first, that one is very pleased that proceedings against those accused of the terrible massacre at Pinkville are continuing? But is he also aware that many people would say that the best service which he could render the United States and the American people is to tell President Nixon that the American engagement in Vietnam is futile and doomed to failure?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that I have anything to add on Vietnam to what I said in the debate just before Christmas and also, of course, to what was said then and subsequently in pointing out to my hon. Friend, first of all, that substantial withdrawals, including ultimately total withdrawal of ground combat forces, by President Nixon have already been announced as part of his policy and that, if we want to see quicker progress, it is time we got something of a progress-making offer from the other side in the talks in Paris, which are now celebrating the first anniversary of their commencement.
§ Mr. TapsellWill the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when in Washington that it is widely believed in the Far East, contrary to many reports, that this is the most propitious moment for a settlement in Vietnam since the Tet truce of 1966, when the right hon. Gentleman made his initiative to Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson which so nearly proved fruitful?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was, I think, in February, 1967. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, that there are reasons, for which the evidence is very hard to produce, why this could be a moment when advance can be made, but it means an advance, over and above what President Nixon has said, by the other side in the negotiations in Paris. Anything which we or our fellow co-chairman can do, separately or together, we have made clear that we will do if the parties want us to.
§ Mr. BrooksIn view of the important bearing of Sino-Soviet relations on the 695 ending of this war and the serious and alarming deterioration in the situation between those two countries, would my right hon. Friend not think it urgently necessary to impress on President Nixon the need to bring China into the councils of the United Nations?
§ The Prime MinisterIt has always been our policy and the policy of our predecessors to support the entry of the Chinese Government, which has been recognised by Governments of both parties in this country, into the United Nations. I am not at all certain whether that fact of itself, if it became a reality, would, of itself, help with a Vietnam settlement. However, it is something which, on its own merits, we have always supported and which we will continue to support in any discussion of this subject next week.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonHas the Prime Minister consulted President Nixon on the possibility of diplomatic or other action on behalf of American prisoners of war in North Vietnam whose plight has caused grave concern in the United States and elsewhere?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is right when he speaks of the concern that is felt in the United States and elsewhere on this issue. He will be aware of what has been attempted in Paris to bring this matter to the attention of the North Vietnamese authorities. If either or both of the fellow co-chairmen could help in this matter we would, of course, be ready, if asked, to do so. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt also be aware that on my visit to Moscow in July, 1966, the main theme of the discussions at that time, which I think proved fruitful, was in relation to the treatment of certain prisoners and the threat at that time to put those prisoners on trial.