§ 2.41 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the interests of peace, representations have been made by member of the Commonwealth Mission or by the Foreign Office to the Government of the United States of America regarding the decision to direct bombing not only on military targets but on civilian communities, and to the widening use of gas and chemical instruments of war which are destructive of the lives and livelihood of the peasant population.]
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, so far as we know, no decision to change the 5 character of their bombing has been taken by the U.S. Government and therefore no representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government. So far as I am aware, the only gas being used in South Vietnam is tear gas, and I am sure that my noble friend would not wish me to press for the use of more lethal weapons, because tear gas can actually preserve lives that would otherwise be lost.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he has seen the statements which have been made during visits to South Vietnam by representatives of the United States: that the war must now take the form of a total war, which means the destruction of villages, women and children, and the burning of their bodies in an inhuman way, which is just affronting the conscience of the world? Cannot Her Majesty's Government make some appeal, not only to America but also to the other side, which has been engaged in assassinations in Saigon, for these methods to be stopped?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government and I naturally share with the noble Lord his horror at the killings and sufferings which are taking place there, but I am afraid the only way in which this can be brought to an end is by an end of hostilities themselves. It is idle to think that an appeal to any of the participants for moderation, while it might have some effect, if there were any opportunity for it, would increase humanity. I do not accept that there is deliberate inhumanity on the part of the United States Government. But the only way in which this undoubted suffering can be brought to an end is by bringing to an end the actual fighting itself.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, if bombing is intensified, the Vietnamese will become more obdurate? Therefore, is it not feasible that the right atmosphere, in which discussions might be initiated, could be created by asking the Americans if they would cease bombing for a temporary period—say, two weeks—during which time perhaps tempers would cool off a little and it might be possible to have discussions?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, it would be a very happy circumstance indeed if that were likely to be the case, but I am afraid that experience has already shown that the very opposite happens. As the noble Baroness doubtless remembers, there was a temporary cessation of bombing—speaking from memory, I think it was in April or May of this year, about six months ago—but there was no response whatsoever from Hanoi after that; and, in fact, recently, in their attack on Russian policy, the Chinese repudiated the idea of negotiation if the bombing of North Vietnam stopped unless all U.S. troops were withdrawn. Therefore I am afraid that any cessation of bombing would not have the desired effect, but might even be counter-productive, in that it might suggest to the North Vietnamese and to the Chinese that they were on the point of winning.
§ LORD BROCKWAYBut, my Lords, is it not the case that the previous pause was for only five days? Does the Minister really think that within that short period there could be the opportunity for renewed negotiations?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I think that five days would be long enough if there were real eagerness on the part of the North to negotiate. But even if it were not long enough, the statement I have just quoted from the Chinese Government shows that they are in no way impressed by any cessation of bombing.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, is my noble friend not being rather defeatist? If the bombing had ceased for five days during the blitz in this country, at no time should we have said, "Now the Germans are prepared to negotiate peace". Five days is just about enough time for an enemy to say, "Well, he is getting a second breath". Could my noble friend really not suggest at this stage, when we see this senseless bloodshed, that another effort should be made by the United States? Could he not ask them to try for two weeks, or even a month, before they start again? Discussions will have to be initiated eventually. Why not at this stage try to save the thousands of lives which might be saved?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I could not agree more with the final remarks of my noble friend—" Eventually, this will be settled by negotiation; why not do it now?" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that on more than one occasion in making his appeal. But surely the correct and only possible way in which negotiations can now be started is for the North to respond to the often repeated offers of the United States to come and talk to-day without conditions.