VIETNAM

HL Deb 04 May 1966 vol 274 cc411-24

2.49 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on their policy towards the war in Vietnam in view of the recent developments. The noble Lord: My Lords, I wish first to express appreciation to those who have co-operated in giving me the opportunity to put my Unstarred Question to-day, which will not only enable an exchange to be held between Ministers and Members of this House but will also give the opportunity for a debate. I appreciate especially the action of members of the Government who, despite great inconvenience, have agreed to the change in the procedure which has been accepted.

I wish to discuss the issue of the war in Vietnam, which is surely the most important event in international affairs to-day. Every one of us must be conscious of the responsibility which our words have in the present situation. I shall try to speak in that spirit. At this moment in Vietnam we are at the crossroads between an intensification of the war and its possible extension in Asia, and indeed in the world, and the tendencies which are now making themselves evident for progress towards peace.

The intensification of the war has been shown by a number of recent pronouncements. There is the statement of Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defence, that 50,000 tons of bombs were dropped in the one month of March upon North and South Vietnam, three times the monthly rate in the Korean War, and that it is planned to drop 638,000 tons of bombs during the present year. This fate is less than the use of a nuclear bomb, but it approaches it. In the Korean war three million civilians were killed and five million people were made homeless and destitute, and the rate of destruction and death in Vietnam to-day is three times this appalling holocaust. Moreover, my Lords, the destructive power of the bombs to-day is intensely increased. The "Lazy Dog" splinter bomb had not been invented at the time of the Korean War, and the napalm bomb did not cling so intimately and so devastatingly to burn human bodies which it touched. We now have the up-to-date weapon which destroys in the villages and among the population of Vietnam children and women as well as men, who are being sprayed and cruelly tortured to death by this infamously cruel weapon.

Quite apart from the inhuman tragedy of what is happening to the people of Vietnam, who have gone through 25 years of struggle for their own self-determination, against Japan, against France, previously to the present struggle, there are indications from at least the Pentagon—though I do not think it represents the whole of the American Government—of an extension of the bombing which is taking place. It is now nearing the suburbs of Hanoi in North Vietnam. It is nearing the port of Haiphong. It was officially announced this week, for the first time, that the American attack had gone over the frontiers of Cambodia. I recognise at once that the troops of the National Liberation Front may have withdrawn over that border and that in those circumstances the Americans were militarily justified in meeting their continued fire. Unfortunately neither the Government of Cambodia nor the Government of Laos is yet in a position to intern troops which cross into their territory. But this very fact illustrates the danger that the war in Vietnam may spread to new areas, into Cambodia, into Laos, over South-East Asia, challenging China. We have recently also had the disturbing news that in North Vietnam the American jet planes have been met by MiGs said to have been supplied from China (I think they are much more likely to have been supplied from Soviet Russia), and the threat that such assistance in the provision of planes would be met by retaliation on China.

My Lords, I am trying to take an objective view of the situation and I do not pretend for one moment that the intensification of the war is all due to the American side. There has been evidence in recent weeks of the growing infiltration of troops from North Vietnam into South Vietnam. And to-day we have to face the very serious position that there is an increased probability of external Communist intervention in the war in Vietnam. Soviet Russia is now succeeding for the first time in calling a representative international conference representing Communist countries at which North Vietnam will be present, despite the disapproval of China. We should be deluding ourselves if we did not expect at that conference greater pressure than ever for Communist intervention and support for North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam. I say, with the utmost seriousness and gravity, that unless these tendencies to intensify and extend the war are met, the danger of world war will be real before the end of this year.

I want to look at the other side and the more hopeful picture of the progress towards peace. There has recently been, in the territories which are under the control of the American armies and the Saigon administration, what is no less than rebellion. It has been led by the Buddhist community, the majority community within South Vietnam. It is not, however, only a revolt by the Buddhist community against the Ky militarist régime supported by the United States of America. A most significant fact, which has not been widely reported in this country, is that two major groups of the Catholic community have now formed a national front with the Buddhists in the Saigon area of South Vietnam in order to overthrow this military régime.

The revolt has taken place, not only in Saigon but in every town in the whole of the area of South Vietnam which is under the control of the American forces and the Saigon Government, and we should be taking a short-sighted and limited view if we thought for one moment that this was merely a protest against the military régime of Marshal Ky. The people of South Vietnam, whether they are in the Saigon territory or in the much larger territory under the control of the National Liberation Front, have the same instinctive reactions to foreign occupation as any people in any country in the world have, and as we should have in similar circumstances.

Saigon and the other towns in the Saigon area are now among the most artificial and corrupt societies in the whole of the world. They are towns under American occupation; they are towns where the Americans have their camp followers in hotels, in restaurants, in the shops, in night clubs; where an American soldier renting a room at a hotel has a Vietnamese prostitute placed at his disposal. This is the most artificial, corrupt and immoral society in any part of the world to-day, and, except for those dependent upon American dollars, among the masses of the people there are rising prices, because of the American ability to spend; there is increasing poverty and distress, and there is increasing anger against these overlords in their towns and cities.

The protest that was reflected in the Buddhist revolt is a natural protest against people who are under alien domination. The strength of that protest is shown by the surrender of Marshal Ky to the Buddhist demands. There is to be an election in August of a National Assembly which is to meet in September. From all the experience there has been in Vietnam we must be a little reluctant to believe that that election of a National Assembly will be free and democratic. But our Government here has to face the fact which now the American Government is slowly beginning to face; that the case that was put by America, that the war in Vietnam is a war between the North and the South for the defence of the South against the North, is now crumbling to bits; and if there are free and democratic elections, even within the Saigon area, in August there is little doubt that a Government will be returned which will be seeking peace in Vietnam, and seeking peace negotiations with the National Liberation Front, to obtain self-determination for the people of South Vietnam, and the end of any foreign occupation of their territory.

I think it is worth while to-day to look at the American reaction to this situation. The whole case for American intervention in Vietnam is now collapsing. That case was the defence of South Vietnam against Communist North Vietnam. It is now becoming clear that the people of South Vietnam want peace, and are prepared to negotiate that peace with their fellow Vietnamese who are in the National Liberation Front. I will not dwell on this, but the proposal of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam—called by the Americans Viet Cong—is for a Coalition Government in South Vietnam, representing not only the National Liberation Front but the Buddhists and the Catholics. On that basis, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that peace with national support can be secured in South Vietnam.

These events have caused new thinking in America. I am most impressed by what Senator Richard Russell, the Chairman of the Senate Defence Committee, has said. Senator Richard Russell has been regarded as one of the hawks, as distinct from the doves. Nevertheless, he says that if, on investigation, the majority of South Vietnamese people want America out, the United States should withdraw her forces. A large proportion of both Houses at the Capitol—it is said to be as large as 40 per cent. of Representatives and Senators—now wants a modification of Government policy. It is certainly backed by leading Americans, such as Robert Kennedy, Senator Fulbright, Senator Mansfield, Senator Jacob Javits and others.

The British Press has reported on the National Opinion Poll in America which indicates that the majority of Americans are still behind the policy of President Johnson. The most remarkable fact here is that over 30 per cent. of the people in the National Opinion Polls in America declared for the withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam. There has never been a war in modern times—a war in which one's Government is engaged in actual hostilities, when one's own boys are involved at the front—when such a proportion has been opposed to the continuation of the war. Something is happening to-day to American opinion of which our Government should be taking notice. I have no doubt whatsoever that President Johnson is now making an agonising reappraisal of the situation. I have no doubt that he is making efforts for peace between these two tendencies, that of the Pentagon and that manifested by the more reasonable elements in the Secretary of State's Department, which are now clashing. I welcome the news announced to-day, that Mr. Averell Harriman, President Johnson's special ambassador, and the Roumanian Prime Minister, Mr. Maurer, are meeting at the International Red Cross Centre in Geneva. It is expected that they will be discussing more than the condition of the prisoners on both sides, and I hope that this will be true.

I want to add one other element to this very deep modification of opinion in America itself. It is the new situation in South-East Asia as a whole; it is the new balance of forces. One saw South-East Asia, with great Communist China in the North, and with the great Indonesian archipelago of 100 million people in the South disposed towards China. There has now been a change in Indonesia. I am not for one moment going to endorse all that has happened, certainly not the appalling massacres which have taken place; but the new situation has now changed the whole balance of forces in South-East Asia. This must require a reconsideration of policies by the West, particularly by our own Government. I welcome the contribution made by the Government to Indonesia's economic development. I also welcome the fact that there is now on the part of our Government a new attitude towards the settlement of the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation. I hope that it will take place on the basis of the Manila Agreement, which existed even before Malaysia was established. I submit to your Lordships that that change in the balance of power in South-East Asia must have a very considerable effect when we are thinking of developments in Vietnam.

I want to say this to my own Front Bench—and I have never doubted the sincerity of this Government in seeking peace in Vietnam; I have had my personal discussions both with the Prime Minister and with the Foreign Secretary, and that has been doubly evident to me. From the first I have taken the view that those efforts towards peace were prejudiced by the undiluted support given by our Government to the United States of America. I say this to our Government: not only can the United States not justify its actions in Vietnam on the ground that it is a defence of the South against the North; our own Government cannot now justify that argument. For it is becoming increasingly evident that the majority of the people of South Vietnam are against the war in which the Americans have been engaged and are against the Government which the Americans have propped up in South Vietnam.

I want to submit to our Government that in this new situation they should reconsider their policy. Because I so earnestly desire peace, I want to see pressure being put on the United States and upon the Government of North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front. Our Government can still influence the United States. The non-aligned Governments—Marshal Tito, and President Nasser are at this moment in consultation to call a new conference for this purpose—can influence North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front. France can bring influence to bear, as can Russia, because, despite its commitment to the cause of the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front, Russia sincerely desires peace in the world. I beg whoever replies to this debate for the Government not to point to past failures in this direction: I am aware of them; I have participated in them. But we now have a new situation in face of which our Government must take a constructive attitude towards peace.

I welcome the fact that, during the Election, spokesmen for our Government said that there was no intention to send British troops to Vietnam. I need not warn the Government of the strength of protest that would arise if any suggestion of that kind were to be considered. I want now to make one further appeal to the Government. We have British police in Saigon who, apparently, are responsible for the maintenance of law and order there; and in Saigon, and in all the other towns of the Saigonese territory (if I may coin a word) there are these popular demonstrations against the Government of Saigon. It would be absolutely disastrous to future good will in Asia if British police were ever used for the suppression of the will of the Vietnamese people. Incidentally, may I just add this comment? I have regretted that Australia and New Zealand have sent their troops there, but I have taken pride in the attitude of the Australian Labour Party, in the much more difficult circumstances of a country near to South-East Asia, opposing the sending of Australian soldiers to Vietnam. Also, in New Zealand, despite an approaching Election, the Labour leadership is saying, "We will reconsider sending troops to Vietnam, and at least will limit any aid to technical assistance."

My Lords, I want to conclude by making quite constructive proposals. There is to be an election in the Saigon area in August—at least, we hope that that pledge will be fulfilled and there is to be a meeting of the National Assembly in September. I want to ask the British Government to use the influence which I recognise is still in their power, particularly with their greater majority now, to urge upon the American Government that a truce should be called in the fighting in Vietnam during that election in August, and until the meeting of the National Assembly in September. I ask for a cease-fire, a truce, during the month of the election until the Assembly meets in Saigon in September. If that could be achieved, it would be the beginning of the end of the war.

I want to make another suggestion, and this is an appeal to the non-aligned Governments, and to those of France and Russia. It is that North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front should accept any proposal of this kind. They, to our regret, have previously declined opportunities of negotiation, but now they have everything on their side. They now have the rebellion in the Saigon area against the continuation of the war. I want to suggest to them, not only that the truce should be accepted in August and September, but that the National Liberation Front should agree to a simultaneous election in the area of South Vietnam controlled by them. I suggest, also, that that election should take place under the supervision of the International Control Commission of India, Poland and Canada. I believe that those constructive proposals, supported by our own Government and accepted by America, backed by the non-aligned Governments and by France and Russia, might bring us some hope that at this critical cross-roads of history Vietnam will move not towards the road of extended war but towards the road to peace.

3.25 p.m.

LORD MILFORD

My Lords, a lot has happened since we last had a debate on Vietnam in this House. Thousands and thousands of villagers have been killed, their homes burned, their children, if not dead, perhaps maimed for life. The gravest thing of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, is that the war is escalating. In this country the question of Vietnam was deliberately kept out of the General Election, but I suggest that the majority of people here are absolutely horrified by this war and would welcome Britain's dissociating herself from the American Pentagon so that she could help to make peace in Vietnam. I do not think President Johnson had any right at all to consider that the big victory of the Labour Party in the Election was a blank cheque for him and that the British people would support him in the war in Vietnam. I welcome very much a large advertisement in the middle page of The Times the other day, signed by people who are anything but Left, saying that they dissociated themselves from President Johnson's remarks.

In the Queen's Speech, Vietnam was glossed over. We were merely told that Her Majesty's Government are seeking ways for getting peace. I am absolutely sure that the British Government are quite sincere in this, but I do not see how they are going to manage to be taken seriously as an independent peacemaker as long as we are tied to the tails of the American Pentagon. I was sitting in the Gallery in the other place the other day when the Prime Minister was questioned about bombing getting very near Hanoi. I was disturbed at the way the questions were simply brushed aside by one sentence, such as "Hanoi is not bombed" and similar answers. I was also disturbed at our Foreign Secretary's not having budged one inch since we last discussed this matter in the House, and at the fact that we are still fully behind the American policy in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, things are stirring amongst the people in this country. The Scottish T.U.C. have come out against what is happening in Vietnam. There has been the action of the Shopworkers' Union. We have had large marches and demonstrations, very largely, of the youth; and although the youth may not have the vote before 21, I consider they are becom- ing more and more political, especially on foreign affairs and in their demand for decency and justice and real common sense. The Council of Churches has also raised its voice.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, about 37 per cent. of the people in America are now questioning, or are against, the policy of their Pentagon on the war in Vietnam, and the Government has now been forced to recognise this opposition. In the past these people were treated more or less as unpatriotic traitors, but now, because the movement has grown so quickly and so large, the Government has to argue with them, reason with them and treat them as a legitimate opposition. The American Labour Movement is now stirring; and their Government Committees, as we have seen on our own television, are questioning some of McNamara's policies very openly and hard indeed. Yet on May 2 the United States Government said that it needed more napalm for the Vietnam war. It had recently awarded an 11-million dollar contract for the production of 100 million pounds of the stuff to a company in Redwood City, California, but the people from this city strongly objected to their city spawning what is believed to be the first large-scale production since the Korean war of this unpleasant fire-bomb. That is the sort of thing that is happening in America to-day. To think that they are going out to produce more and more and more of this horror!

Every week the American military build-up in Vietnam goes on. Last week, thousands more soldiers were drafted to Vietnam. The war is escalating. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has told us how many tons of bombs they plan to drop on Vietnam this year. What Lord Brockway did not quote were Mr. McNamara's following words. After boasting about the bombs, he said: We are a very peculiar people. We should be proud of what we are doing there, in applying an unlimited military power in pursuit of a limited political objective". "Proud", my Lords! He said that the objective was simply to guarantee self-determination for the Vietnamese people. Is that not exactly what the Vietnamese people have been trying to get all these years?

However, there are some sane American voices in their Government. Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he found it difficult to be proud of American military power. He said. It is very difficult to think of any country in history which had comparable power and did not become very arrogant and self-righteous, and did not seek to impose its will on other people". My Lords, the whole human spirit is losing its sensitivity to-day. More and more horrors are taken for granted. Men are being trained to perpetuate them and to accept them as part of their job. Perhaps some of your Lordships saw the two films recently shown on "Panorama", which showed American troops being taught all about torture and having their faces covered with red ink to make it more realistic.

The danger of escalation is very acute indeed, and that is the most serious and important thing to-day. Bombing is getting nearer and nearer to Hanoi, nearer and nearer to China. Air battles are now taking place right on the border of China. So much so that Senator Robert Kennedy has asked: …what would be the Chinese response if her territory is bombed or her air space invaded? Will the Chinese seek to strike at our bases—in Vietnam or Siam, or aboard our aircraft-carriers? And if they do, what then will our response be—further bombings? And if the scale of the bombing increases, will China confine herself to air fighting—or will she send her troops to engage ours on the ground in South Vietnam,?'…He viewed 'with the gravest concern' the recent clashes between the latest types of U.S. and Soviet-built fighter planes over North Vietnam and the reaffirmation that China would be no sanctuary. He went on to say: This was a clear escalation of the war… A still different angle of the danger of the escalation of the war is seen by Senator Fulbright. A second danger foreseen by Mr. Fulbright is 'the stirring up of a war fever in the minds of our people and leaders,' which was likely to grow and cause mounting popular demand for an expanded war, 'for a lightning blow that will get it over at a stroke'. This way led to global war. However, because of world opinion, public pressure inside America, the military bog-down and the tremendous hostility to the Saigon Government, President Johnson has now declared that he is ready for unconditional peace talks and a return to the Geneva Agreement. But, unfortunately, every time he says this one knows there is going to be increased bombing the next day. That has happened every time. It is always followed by intensified bombing. How can Hanoi come to the peace table or take things seriously when this happens? Hanoi is blamed for making no response to President Johnson's peace talks, and our Government echo these views in complete subservience. But what about General Ky in Honolulu the man that America is backing? He got very worried when President Johnson started to begin to talk about negotiating, and immediately put it out that the South Vietnam Government would not negotiate.

Now the answer always comes back that Hanoi is the aggressor. But are these not really some of the facts? In 1956 there were supposed to be elections to unify the country, which had previously always been one country; but by 1959 the patience of the South Vietnamese, the peasants, and the people of the country, was absolutely exhausted because there had not been any elections. Diem had refused to have them. So the National Liberation Front was formed to get rid of Diem. The American intervention in Vietnamese affairs followed, and afterwards a full-scale war broke out. Is Hanoi to be called the aggressor if she wants to help her own countrymen? Because it was one country. That is the point we must really keep in our minds. If England were in the same situation, if a foreign army were occupying Southern England, would you Scotsmen not come to our help, and would you not be furious at being called the aggressors?

Since our Government unfortunately go on echoing these American accusations against Hanoi, I think that the views of those in Hanoi should be looked at seriously—not in hot blood, but trying to treat them as human beings, as a Government of intelligent people. First of all, they say, "Stop the bombing", naturally, "and withdraw troops from the territory of our fellow countrymen in the South". Is that not absolutely natural? Then they say, "The affairs of South Vietnam must be settled by the South Vietnamese people themselves". Is that not all right? Then, "Pending peaceful reunification, as in the Geneva Agreement, neither zone must join any military alliance". Is that not an absolutely fair, safe, sane demand? And then they want reunification without any foreign interference.

The Americans say that the troops will be withdrawn once peace is assured. It seems to me that these are the two sides of the question: When is peace going to be assured? And how can one trust that they will retire when peace has been restored—since the Geneva Agreement was never allowed to be carried out? I can see that Hanoi has tremendous doubts and is terrified of falling into another trap. And what kind of "decision" would the South Vietnamese have in choosing their own Government if the elections were held under more than a quarter of a million American bayonets? But unfortunately, as I have said before, the British Government stick to the American Government under the slogan, more or less, of "My ally, right or wrong." But it is no longer a war between two Vietnamese régimes; it is war between America and the Vietnamese people. That is why Saigon, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway told us, is now putting up slogans all over the place: "Yanks, go home!"

I feel it is descreditable—and I am sorry to say it—that, in spite of increased world revulsion, the Labour Government have not added their voice to the growing protests of the world to-day against all this bombing and what is happening. Mr. Wilson has denied—Thank goodness, it was not true!—that the reason we were behind the Americans was because of dollars. I am glad that that is not true; I am sure that it is not true. But I cannot understand what it is that does tie us so absolutely uncritically to the Americans' apron strings. This policy of ours, of unquestioned support of America is, I think, doing us tremendous harm in Asia and in Africa, and will continue to do so in the future as those countries develop; and one knows that the Americans themselves do not respect people who do not stand up to them. I feel convinced that this year other trade unions will be following the example of the Scottish T.U.C., that our youth will get more vociferous against this war as the year goes on; and that it will happen all over the world.

I am sure that we have got to stop accusing Hanoi of being the aggressor and to stop saying, "Hanoi will not negotiate"; and really try to understand the situation and get independence ourselves, so that we can do something about it as co-chairman of the Geneva Agreement. Thousands of thousands of tons of napalm and high explosive do not provide the atmosphere in which to negotiate; so, obviously, first of all the bombing has got to stop. Vietnam must be allowed to become one country and to settle what kind of régime they want for themselves. My Lords, there are two Americas to-day. One is a little smaller than the other (at the moment, 37 per cent.), but I think it is getting bigger all the time. I hope that our Government, our Socialist Government, will put all their efforts in support of that other America which agrees with the principle that all nations should settle their own affairs. If we could dissociate ourselves from the Pentagon side of America, we could at once make a reality of our Government's wish to go forward and help bring about peace.