§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
Hon. Members will already have seen reports of President Nixon's announcement on 23rd January of an agreement on ending the war and restoring the peace in Vietnam and a cease-fire to come into effect at midnight on 27th January. I am sure that the whole House will be immensely relieved that, after so many terrible years of conflict, a ceasefire has finally been agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The opportunity is there to achieve an enduring peace, and to extend the settlement into the neighbouring countries of Laos and the Khmer Republic, which have also been ravaged by the war. The United States has kept in close touch with us during the negotiations but we must have time to study the final text of the agreement.
The history of Indo-China gives little scope for easy optimism. But after nearly 30 years of war and near-war this agreement, if observed in good faith, appears to offer the prospect of peace at last.
The Governments concerned are to be congratulated on their success in bringing this agreement about. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending to them and to the peoples of Indo-China our sincere good wishes in their task of achieving a peace of reconciliation. The Prime Minister and I will, of course, be discussing Vietnam among other subjects when we see President Nixon next week.
§ Mr. CallaghanWe are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making that statement. There is no doubt that the whole country will join in the collective sense of relief that will be felt around the world at the end of this phase of this terrible conflict. It is appropriate for us to 462 remember at this stage the sufferings both of the men and the women and the innocent children in Vietnam and of the families of many American soldiers and airmen in a conflict which was not of their making. It is realistic now, as I think the Foreign Secretary indicated in his statement, to recognise that other problems are only now beginning to emerge, and it is realistic that there is no sense of euphoria that this stage of the conflict is over.
Have the Government any specific action in mind, because it seems on first reading of the statement that there is nothing here proposed? For example, is the Foreign Office, as we would hope, to take the initiative in conjunction with other nations at the United Nations to seek to influence the situation especially in regard to the resettlement of refugees and in regard to the future of the political prisoners there, of whom we understand there are about 200,000 and who should not be allowed to languish in gaols uncharged and untried? Does the Foreign Office intend to take any initiative in relation to the world effort that will be required to co-ordinate relief and reconstruction in these areas? We would have preferred that the statement had contained some reference to these matters.
Will the Foreign Secretary convey to both sides what I believe will be the general view, that we expect them to cooperate with the International Control Commission that will be set up if there is to be any chance of a lasting peace in the area? We know that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be discussing these matters when they meet President Nixon. Will the right hon. Gentleman raise the question of the future for Laos and Cambodia, countries which could easily become further involved in the problem? The Labour Party will be sending its own mission to Saigon and Hanoi, and we shall be very happy to make available to the Foreign Secretary the information that it obtains on these visits. On the issues that I have raised, will the Foreign Secretary concentrate on those of immediate concern? The long-term issues will follow afterwards, but for now is not the first task to consolidate the very tenuous cease-fire in which guerrilla warfare may break out, and, secondly, to rebuild the lives of the communities in North and South Vietnam?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI find myself in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly the first task must be to consolidate what I am sure everyone would feel is a precarious peace. Nevertheless, it is a peace and there is a chance of a lasting peace. There should be co-operation by all the parties concerned with the International Control Commission. The commission will be greatly strengthened above what it was after the last phase of the conflict, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to lay the emphasis on this point.
There is nothing at the moment that I have been able to identify in the agreement about Laos and Cambodia, so I take it that the peace machinery which was established in the 1962 conference still operates. We are concentrating our minds very much on this, and the Laotian authorities indicated that they wanted to operate under that machinery.
If there is to be an international conference, and I believe that there will be, we are ready to play a useful part in it if it is open to us to do so. But we do not have the details of this or of the thinking of the main parties. Generally, therefore, the peace must be made by the parties concerned, and that has been done. A cease-fire has been achieved by them. The international community should take part in what the right hon. Gentleman has properly stressed as being an international relief effort
§ Mr. Russell JohnstonI am sure that all hon. Members will happily associate themselves with the congratulations that the Foreign Secretary has offered to both Governments at the end of this most grievous war which has hurt and grieved so many people not only in America but all over the world. The Foreign Secretary said that America had kept us in touch with the negotiations all the way through. Will he say whether he foresees a specific rôle for Britain as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention? Can he say whether the Government are now making any specific plans to act in the way that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested in order to give direct assistance which will be very necessary to assist in the problem of the refugees? Have the 464 Government any plans to bring pressure to bear on both North and South Vietnam over the problem of political prisoners, a problem which I am afraid will continue?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe hon. Member asks whether I see a specific rôle for Britain. Of course we still have the role as co-Chairman as the conflict affects Laos. What international machinery will eventually be decided upon to supervise the new arrangements I cannot yet say, but I shall keep the House informed as I receive that information. The new machinery will supersede the 1954 machinery. So there is a definite rôle for us to play as co-Chairman with the Soviet Union in securing the future peace of Laos.
As for the refugees, my opinion is that the United Nations must be brought into this. It has been kept out for far too long. The effort by the UN must be organised by the Secretary-General.
§ Mr. GoodhartWill my right hon. Friend remember that, while we have offered a great deal of advice to those who have taken part in this, we have offered very little practical assistance to those who have suffered? Will he also bear in mind that our contribution to ease suffering was a mere £10,000 spread over 700,000 refugees? Can we not look at our overseas aid programme with a view to making a much more substantial contribution to the work of rehabilitation?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI do not think the House will feel that we have been backward in these matters. Hon. Members will recall Bangladesh and the great strain which this put upon our aid resources. We will certainly look at this, but we ought not to be ashamed of what we have done.
§ Mr. OramIs it not clear that if peace is to be consolidated, as we all hone it will be, massive aid will be necessary? While it is clear that arrangments for this must await international agreements in the main, would it not be helpful, since we have had a bilateral programme dealing with South Vietnam, to say that it would be possible for this aid programme, for which we have immediate authority, to be extended to other areas of Vietnam?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWe can consider this but it must be dealt with in conjunction with other nations, who will have contributions to make.
§ Sir Bernard BraineMay I reinforce what has been said from both sides of the House? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this country is peculiarly well placed to provide specialist aid for some of the key tasks which will be required to be carried out for the reconstruction of South and North Vietnam? Should not some indication be given now that we are willing to consider this?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI hope I have said with sufficient emphasis that, of course, we are willing to consider this and to take part in such a task. We must know what other countries will do and discuss it with them.
§ Mr. DalyellDealing with Cambodia, if it is true that the 1962 arrangements are still in operation, does not Britain have a peculiar responsibility in this matter? Might it not be wise, since Prince Sihanouk is in Peking, for us at least to talk to the Chinese and to hear their view as to how a settlement in Cambodia could be reached?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWe will certainly talk to the Chinese about a settlement. I said to Mr. Chou En Lai when I was in Peking lately that our particular responsibility with the Russians as co-Chairmen relates to Laos.
§ Mr. Evelyn KingIs this not an appropriate moment to pay a personal and generous tribute to President Nixon——
§ Mr. Robert HughesNo.
§ Mr. King—who in the most daunting and difficult circumstances at all times kept his head and has finally brought the negotiations to a successful end?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes. We have always been convinced that it was a strong American interest to secure a peace and that President Nixon meant to do it. He has got it, and I endorse that tribute.
§ Mr. BarnesReverting to the question of direct assistance with relief and rehabilitation in North and South Vietnam, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear very much in mind the suggestions about direct assistance from this country which have been made from both sides of the House? Would he not agree that experience of the ability of the United Nations to organise an operation of this kind, at least in the short term, is, unfortunately, not very encouraging?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI will bear in mind the possibility of direct assistance. If the hon. Gentleman recalls the Bangladesh case, which is a fair parallel, he will remember that we had to bring in the United Nations to see that the international contributions could be made effective.
§ Mr. CallaghanIf the Foreign Secretary had gone into this in some detail in his statement we would not be putting these questions now. Who will take the initiative in this matter? Clearly, it is a matter for the world. We want to get as wide-ranging a group of nations as we can. Is that not the responsibility of the United Nations? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take an initiative there, or is he waiting until he sees President Nixon? We would regard just waiting for the Americans to come forward with proposals as being quite inadequate.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think I have made it clear that I believe the United Nations ought to take the initiative here, and I am willing to tell the Secretary-General so. Whether he will think it can do so I do not know.