LAOS (Hansard, 9 February 1971)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)
I told the House on 3rd February that I was willing at any time to join with the Soviet co-Chairman to reconvene the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter. I repeated this to the Soviet Ambassador on the following day.
The action which has now been taken by South Vietnamese forces in Laos is a direct consequence of the flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality by North Vietnamese troops which has been going on for years. When those troops proceed to kill South Vietnamese, the reaction of that country is fully understandable.

§ Mr. Hattersley
While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that unequivocal statement of Government support for what is happening in Laos, may I ask three questions? This side of the House, welcomes, of course, the renewed conversations with the Soviet Foreign Minister, but bearing in mind developments over the last two days, may we ask whether he will yet again make a specific approach offering our good offices to act within the terms of the 1962 Convention and, if he thinks that a specific approach is inappropriate, will he tell the House why?
Secondly, can he tell the House whether the Government of Laos have officially made any approach to Her Majesty's Government in their capacity as a co-Chairman? Thirdly, bearing in mind recent reports of the new relationship which has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, may we be told if that new rapport resulted in this country being consulted before the United States took that action?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
In relation to the original remark of the hon. Gentleman, I would refer him to a reply to a somewhat similar question given by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) in the last Parliament. He said: … a simple condemnation of the action of the United States, and of the United States 276 alone, could not be justified either in common sense or as a useful contribution to peacemaking in this area".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 218.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not departing from that point of view. I made a specific approach to the Soviet Ambassador five days ago and I do not propose to repeat this every five days. It is open to Mr. Gromyko to answer at any time and to reinstate the machinery of the Geneva Conference. The answer to the second question is that the Laotian Government have not made an approach to Her Majesty's Government. On the third question, Her Majesty's Government were not consulted by the United States Government. We were informed that no United States troops were taking part in this operation. I have constantly stated that the only status the United Kingdom has in this matter is as co-Chairman of the Conference which we hoped would bring peace if it was recalled.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
Does my right hon. Friend recall any Private Notice Question or any request from the party opposite for special action by the Geneva co-Chairmen when a Communist offensive has been mounted?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I am afraid that condemnation of the North Vietnamese for the violation of the neutrality of Laos has been singularly lacking from any quarter.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Does the Foreign Secretary's reply imply that he thinks that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is talking nonsense when he calls the American action deplorable?

Hon. Members
Yes.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I think everyone deplores the extension of this war, but it would have been rather better if the condemnation of the North Vietnamese Government had been made from the start.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had not carefully considered what he said; he said that there had been no condemnation from any quarter about North Vietnam infiltration into Laos and other Communist attacks in Laos. I will not press him for an answer now, but would he look up the private record of our relations with the 277 Governments concerned and also statements made in this House? He will find that he is totally wrong. In this respect he is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and other members of the late Government.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I would certainly not wish to be unfair to the right hon. Member for Fulham. He took a most courageous line in this matter all the way through—in sharp contra-distinction to some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

§ Sir F. Bennett
Further to the last two or three questions, is it not a fact that the Laotian Government in their representations about what has been going on have openly placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnamese penetration of their country? Further, is it not a fact that so far as hearing about Private Notice Questions from hon. Members opposite goes, we did not hear any mention at all of North Vietnamese penetration?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
It is true that the Laotian Government have placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnam, although they, like everyone else, deplore the extension of this war. I would have thought that the whole House would agree that the constructive thing to do now is to try to reinstate the Geneva machinery so that we can get the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cambodia, South Vietnam and Laos.

§ Mr. Crawshaw
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the flooding over of this war into that part of South-East Asia has always been a real possibility, irrespective of whether American troops were there? Is it not equally important for us to try to realise that if there is further extension of the war into Thailand our own forces might be involved? Would the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage, if it did go into Thailand, our troops would be required?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
This is a separate matter and matters concerning Thailand are for the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. We have no obligation in respect of South Vietnam and we have made it clear that we are not involved in this war. The practical thing is for the Soviet Foreign Minister now to respond to my appeal to set up the Geneva Peace Conference.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Has not the change in the nature of the struggle in the area since 1954 made the co-Chairmanship machinery somewhat outdated, and might we not make more progress if we approached the Soviet Union with a view to associating some of the non-aligned Asian Powers with the discussions?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
This may well be so. I am ready at any time to consult the Soviet Foreign Minister as to whether any variation of the Geneva machinery is desirable, and I am also ready to consult with the Chinese. The great advantage of the Geneva machinery is that it is there, it was kept in being for this purpose and could be resurrected quite quickly.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Will not the Foreign Secretary accept that when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia hon. Members on this side of the House were the first to protest, and the Government then in office immediately arranged for the recall of Parliament and a debate. Has the Foreign Secretary seen the statement of the Prime Minister of Laos, Souvanna Phouma, protesting against the invasion, and will he not join the Secretary-General of the United Nations in condemning this extension of the war and make representations in Washington requesting the United States to withdraw all their forces and not to expand this war?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The Question is about Laos and not about Czechoslovakia. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps recognise that the action of the North Vietnamese in mobilising an attack through neutral Laotian territory is likely to prevent and not accelerate American withdrawal.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
What we really want to hear from the Foreign Secretary, instead of a general statement on the situation, is some filling out of what he said just now about possible changes in the Geneva machinery. Does he recall that in 1963, I think, when he was previously Foreign Secretary and there was further trouble in Laos after the 1962 Conference, he put forward the proposal that instead of calling the full Geneva Conference there should be a conference between the parties, the co-Chairmen 279 and the members of the Control Commission. This idea was unfortunately not then accepted. Since the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the last thing he can ever expect is that the Soviet Government will want a full-dress Geneva Conference with the Chinese present—he must realise that—will he give consideration to the proposal put forward by him at that time, and by others later, that there should be a more restricted conference of just the parties, the co-Chairmen and members of the Control Commission?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
This might be possible, although the Russians have shown no sign of reactivating or wishing to reactivate the Control Commission. It would be fair to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Chinese are present at a conference there would be very little chance of peace.