§ Mr. Callaghan (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a Statement on the steps Her Majesty's Government are taking as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference to assist in effecting a cessation of hostilities in Vietnam.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)Apart from approaches that I have made in recent months, I have made two approaches in the last five weeks to the Soviet Foreign Minister, the most recent on 20th April, proposing a reconvening of the Geneva Conference with a view to bringing about an end to the fighting through a negotiated settlement. To both approaches the Soviet answer has been that the proposal was not practicable.
§ Mr. CallaghanI accept that if the Russians will not come that makes life a little difficult when trying to get discussions going. Would the Minister represent to the United States that, to those who feel for and understand her position, her present policy is leading her to a dead end? Would it not be appropriate for him to indicate to the United States, in terms which he thinks right, that the people of this country could not accept any escalation of the bombing, which would mean tremendous human suffering without leading to any tangible benefits to the ends of American policy?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe right hon Gentleman is right on the first point. Under the 1954 Geneva Agreement, the co-Chairmen must take joint decisions. However, much as I want a conference, I cannot have it unless Mr. Gromyko will co-operate.
The right hon. Gentleman will not ignore the fact that the United States has offered negotiations without conditions. It is for the North Vietnamese to decide whether to accept those negotiations. The United States has gone as far as it can.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonDespite the total inaction of the United Nations, can there be any doubt in this case that this is an act of aggression by North Vietnam against South Vietnam? There is no 906 longer any pretence anywhere of spontaneous rebellion, peasant revolt, or anything of that kind. Is not the position of the United States entirely correct, and as correct as it was when the United States led resistance to aggression in Korea? Is not the position of the United States provided for under the United Nations Charter?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeMy hon. Friend is right. If the South Vietnamese are left out of the picture altogether, the North Vietnamese have violated in a big way the frontiers of Cambodia and Laos. This is an invasion across international frontiers. It is an invasion across the demarcation line which was laid down by the 1954 Agreement.
§ Mr. ThorpeAccepting that either co-Chairman has a right of veto on the convening of a conference, without prejudice to the current Paris talks, would the Prime Minister agree that the chances and possibilities of escalation present wide dangers to the world at large. Would he consider the possibility of an approach to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to see whether some body of neutrals, agreeable to both sides, might try to get some form of negotiation going in default of the Geneva Conference being reconvened?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe right hon. Gentleman knows that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been approached on this matter and has found himself unable to act because the North Vietnamese will not recognise in any circumstances the right of the United Nations to intervene.
§ Mr. CormackIs it not essential for my right hon. Friend to try to impress on the Russian Government that unless and until the North Vietnamese desist from their aggression there can be no hope at all for South-East Asia.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe Soviet Government are in a difficult position. It is their armament in North Vietnam that has made this offensive possible. It is an offensive different in nature from anything that has happened in recent years in that it is an invasion by North Vietnamese regular troops across dividing lines laid down by an international conference.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunWould the Government appeal to President Nixon to stop the saturation bombing of civilian targets which, according to our radio, is taking place now? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman ask President Nixon forthwith for an early and definite date for the withdrawal of land, air and naval forces from Indo-China, since their presence can only prolong the agony?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe answer must be "no" to that question. The Americans have offered a peace conference without any pre-conditions. I do not see why the North Vietnamese, if they wish peace and a final settlement of the Vietnamese problem, should not accept that proposition.
§ Mr. BlakerThe North Vietnamese are clearly in breach of their own undertakings in successive conferences. Is it not rather extraordinary that the Opposition should criticise the Americans and never criticise the North Vietnamese?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI do not think that this has been true of the Opposition leadership. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) when in office was careful not to condemn American aggression.
§ Mr. CallaghanWe are concerned with the interests of the people of Vietnam and also with our friendship with the United States. We do not wish to see the United States led into paths which will worsen the situation and make our relations more difficult. Is it not the task of friends—I admit that candid friends are a damned nuisance—to point out to friends the policy they are following if there is to be an escalation leading to much worse aggression?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWhich course would be worse the whole of Vietnam being over-run by the Communists, or American intervention? I do not feel inclined to make representations to the President of the United States on this matter. We have no status in this war and no right to intervene except as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, which I hope may be convened to bring about peace.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopDoes the right hon. Gentleman recognise that American policy now being followed can lead only to the complete wiping out of the whole Viet- 908 nam? What kind of pacification or anything else can come from that?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWe would far rather see a negotiated peace. I cannot lay the blame for no negotiated peace on the shoulders of the United States.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIn further exchanges with the Russians, would my right hon. Friend bring to bear on them the fact that their position as co-Chairman is not improved in the eyes of the world by their further supply of military material to their aggressive allies in North Vietnam? The Americans have ensured our security by their endeavours in the past, and will do so in the future. We shall not be secure if they fail now in assisting their allies in the South.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have made many representations to Mr. Gromyko on this matter to reconvene the Geneva Conference. The way to get all foreign troops out of the area of South-East Asia is for the Soviet Union to agree to this course. They have compromised their position by giving armaments to the North Vietnamese to make this offensive possible.
§ Mr. LathamI accept that the Foreign Secretary may apply different political judgments to many of us, but would he not at least agree that the situation in Indo-China is desperate and urgent and that it is vital, in the names of the people of the world and of humanity, that urgent representations should be made to President Nixon that at least what he does is shown to have some military relevance and not to be simply punitive revenge against the civilian population of the North?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIf the hon. Gentleman could give me a convincing answer to why North Vietnam has refused President Nixon's offer for unconditional negotiations, I should find myself nearer his position.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Boardman—statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it a point of order arising out of the business we have already taken?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that, perhaps, we had better have the statement first. Mr. Boardman.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the business we have just taken. I beg to give notice—which is what I thought that my hon. Friend was about to do—that we shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.