VIETNAM

HL Deb 04 May 1966 vol 274 cc428-40

3.56 p.m.

Debate resumed.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, my political philosophy has been fairly well known in both Houses of Parliament. My political instincts prompt me always to oppose dictatorship of the Right and of the Left and to regard war as a means of settling disputes as a primitive conception. But perhaps that has to do with the fact that I belong to a sex which is not called on to indulge in the rather brutal scenes that are depicted on television in these days. Nevertheless, this television of ours does do this, and I think it serves a very useful purpose. It brings into our home a picture of what is happening in distant parts of the world, and it has brought the Vietnam war into our homes. I feel that no individual in this House, or in the other House, can feel he is not involved in it in any way.

Britain, my Lords, is not only a sleeping partner in this war, in this anachronism. The majority of American servicemen are European in origin and they speak our language. I believe that this diminishes us all. I would say, in parenthesis, that it seems paradoxical that one reads about crimes of violence and allied perversion in our newspapers and at the same time young soldiers are encouraged to regard killing and torture as part of their legitimate training in the military arts. All this makes a mockery of the debate we had yesterday, when speaker after speaker stood up and discussed how we could train our young men to think along lines which perhaps were more pacific than their usual approach to life. How can we reform the potential criminals in this country, in the United States, in Vietnam, or in any other country of the world while our young men are indoctrinated by such example?

I read in the Guardian yesterday (this is what prompted me to speak today) that information had reached the newspaper through Swedish diplomatic sources that the Soviet Union had managed to arrange a conference of Communist Powers to agree on a course of action on Vietnam. I confess that my first reaction was that of someone who had watched the bullying of a small man by a big man for too long and now another big man was coming along to pull him off. That was a primitive reaction. My second reaction, of course, was to picture the possibility of world involvement in a war which is arousing racial passions in every continent. These pictures we see in our homes go throughout the world, and men and women identify themselves with the men and women and children in those pictures.

The question we want to ask the Government at this stage—because I feel with my noble friends who have just spoken that we have reached a stage, surely, when we must look at the whole picture again—is, can we look forward to the end of this futile slaughter before other Powers are committed? We learn of the bombing of North Vietnam. Yet more North Vietnamese troops and supplies are entering South Vietnam than ever before. Officials in Washington wishfully think that the war can be won early next year, but this is wholly discounted by Saigon. General Westmorland has repeated on many occasions that the war will be long-drawn-out.

The figures are easy to remember. The Viet Cong now have about a quarter of a million men under arms in South Vietnam; the United States have approximately the same; and there are about three-quarters of a million in the South Vietnamese forces, including the police forces. But men and arms are not the sole determining factor—the French learned that to their cost. The monsoon season, the thick jungles and the mountain areas are formidable allies of the Viet Cong. However much we see these great, tough, pathetic Americans being taught jungle warfare, they cannot in a few weeks or a few months learn how to conduct war under those conditions. Furthermore, the Buddhists' political action—and the Buddhists command tremendous respect in the whole of South-East Asia is threatening to bring down the military dictatorship.

I want to ask my noble friend a question, and I hope he will try to answer. I am also trying to help. I think that taking part in a constructive way in this debate strengthens the hands of our spokesmen with the spokesmen of the United States. We know by now that there are many in the United States who feel as we do, if the elections are held—and the Buddhists will not tolerate undue delay—and the new Government asks the Americans to leave, what is to happen? I think we have a right to ask. After all, as has already been said, Britain has echoed the declaration of the United States that they are there to preserve democracy. We have sat here quietly in this House all these months because we have been told that the object is to preserve democracy. What can be their justification for staying if a democratically elected Government tells them to leave? Would the United States defy them and try to destroy the Viet Cong from a few coastal bases? At this stage I think we should be told what is to be the strategy. The French failed after six years of fighting—and I have forgotten the colossal number of young Frenchmen whose lives were sacrificed in that ridiculous and futile attempt to continue to occupy that country.

I suspect that the United States would like to withdraw now but fears to lose face, now that it has been announced during the last 48 hours that the Communist countries are coming together with a view to seeing what can be done about this situation, we should anticipate what might happen. I feel that it is not just a question of losing face but that the Government should, on what I am told is the "hot line" to President Johnson, tell him that it is better to lose face with dignity than to invite humiliation.

4.5 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when he commenced his speech, said that this was one of the most serious issues that we have to face. I agree with him. But it is an issue which is not going to be decided by student demonstrations; it is not going to be decided by public opinion polls; it is not going to be decided by slogans, nor even advertisements in The Times from ladies and gentlemen, however distinguished. Few things, I think, are more dangerous than a person who goes to a locality, spends a short time there, and then comes back posing as a "know-all" and possibly writing a book.

Nevertheless, it is possible to go to an area and gather authoritative opinions from all sides. Quite recently I had the opportunity of going to Singapore and Thailand and talking to many people of all nationalities represented in those places. One can get two views. One can get the view that if America pulled out of South Vietnam the Viet Cong would walk into the country, greeting their brothers. I must say that I found Lord Milford's view that Hanoi wishes to help their comrades slightly strange, having heard first-hand of the complete obliteration of a South Vietnamese village. It had been occupied by the Viet Cong, then the South Vietnamese had come back, and then again the Viet Cong had returned; and because the village had accepted the South Vietnamese, the Viet Cong took every man, woman and child and murdered them and burned the village down. I find that a difficult thing to accept as a method of helping your friends.

LORD MILFORD

My Lords, after two world wars. I think we have to be careful about atrocity stories.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I will let that go. You can get that view. It reminds me of Hitler saying: "This is my last territorial aim". Then you get the view, which I found much more widely held, that this is a war in aid, not of democracy, but of freedom, and that the issue is twofold: first, it is an issue local; and secondly, it is an issue almost global. The local issue is whether the South Vietnamese shall or shall not come under Communist domination. The global issue is that if this happened, would it be the start of the capture by the Communists of Thailand and then going further West right through to India? That seems to me to be the issue. It is a fringe war.

If one looks at history, one sees that Britain in the 19th century and early in the 20th century was doing very much more what America is having to do now: that is, fight a war on a fringe, on an outpost, on a frontier, in aid of a cause which they feel is vital. We did it in the 19th century, and we did it in Malaysia in the 20th century. America is doing it now. As such, I feel it is our task, if we can, to fight against a surrender to the Communist advancement throughout the free world, and to support America in her present policy, as Her Majesty's Government are doing. I would say at once that there is no final military solution; the final solution must be political. But let it be a political solution not under the threat and the shadow of Communism. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and other noble Lords, said, "Bombing must stop." I do not think one can isolate bombing. It is part of a military operation. It is part of an operation combined with action by ground troops, and possibly naval ships. If you say, "Stop the bombing", you are virtually saying, "Stop all fighting and surrender to the other side." I do not believe that that would be a wise or a sensible policy to follow in the interests of the Free World.

I sincerely hope that we in this House can express sympathy and not condemnation of the Americans—sympathy for the lives that are being lost, and for the mothers who are losing their sons in Vietnam in the ultimate cause which we share with them. I hope we can express admiration for the American troops. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, talked about "fat young Americans". I believe she used that expression.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I said that they were pathetic.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I think one ought to admire those young men who are being trained for jungle warfare for what they are doing, and not to criticise them in any shape or form.

I think Her Majesty's Government are in a difficult position. They are supporting American policy in its broadest terms, and yet we in this country are not sending any troops. I should not like to send troops; I entirely agree with Her Majesty's Government on that. But, nevertheless, we are now obtaining the benefit of the security of the fringe war which the Americans are conducting.

Equally in the past they on their part have obtained the credit and security from the fringe wars that we have fought, particularly in Malaysia. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will take the view that, although there is no military solution in the long term, nevertheless it is a necessary part of the final solution which we hope will be arrived at, to continue to resist aggression which, if successful, would suppress liberty, not only in Vietnam, but probably throughout the whole of the Eastern World.

4.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I had not intended to say anything in this debate because we have discussed this matter so often lately, including, in the debate on the Address. I intervene only for one moment because of what has just been said about discounting atrocities. I think I ought to say that all our information, both official and unofficial, is to the effect that the Viet Cong rule by terror. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who talked in his intervention about discounting atrocities after two world wars, thinks we ought entirely to discount what happened at Lidice in the last war, and in more than one French village, in which the inhabitants were all massacred by the Nazis because they tried to support Resistance movements. That is an exact parallel to what is happening now in Vietnam, where the villagers want to be allowed to live their own lives in peace. They do not want to he conquered by anybody. The reason why they are often constrained, either to co-operate with the aggressor, or to refrain from resisting him, is exactly the same reason why so many wretched people in Czechoslovakia, France, and the other occupied territories, had to some extent to collaborate with the Nazis in the last war.

I do not want to add anything more. We believe that this is a case where a weak country is being invaded by an aggressor who is stronger than it is. I think it is a pity to obscure that principle by trying to make out that all the horrible things are being done by one side and not by the other. The truth is that the ultimate responsibility for all the horrible things that happen in any war must surely lie with the aggressor who refuses to negotiate.

4.16 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, may I at the outset apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Brockway, for my absence during the early stages of this debate. I explained the reasons to my noble friend, who was as usual very understanding. I can assure your Lordships that it was only an essential engagement which had been entered into prior to the change of programme which forced me to do so.

As usual, the debate on this subject has been carried on in a thoughtful, informed, and helpful manner, and for that I am grateful. My noble friend Lord Brockway in his original Question drew attention to the recent changes which have taken place in South Vietnam, and suggested that that was sufficient reason for a new look at this whole problem. I can assure my noble friend that there is a new look continuously going on at the whole of this area, and at the difficulties which confront it. It is not simply when a particular headline-striking event takes place that the old files are dug out and we say, "What can be done now?" We are weekly, and daily, studying the problem and seeing what can be done to bring the present state of affairs to an end.

The present situation in South Vietnam undoubtedly has changed the internal situation in South Vietnam itself with regard to the present Government and, of course, with regard to the future elections. I should like to assure noble Lords that, in spite of the difficulties which Marshal Ky's Government has experienced during these last weeks, there is no indication whatsoever that those in South Vietnam who are opposed to him, and in particular the Buddhists, are in any way anxious to hand their country over to a Communist-dominated Government of any kind. In fact, one of the more extreme Buddhist leaders has said: It is agreed by all that the struggle against Communism here must be met with the assistance of the Americans. So I think it would be highly misleading if noble Lords and others went away with the impression that the opposition to Marshal Ky and his colleagues stems from those who would rather see a Communist Government take over.

As for the new elections, I share my noble friend's hopes in this. I should certainly share his desire that these might take place, not only in those areas which are controlled by the Government of Saigon, but also in those areas which are controlled by the Viet Cong. I think that that would be a highly important step forward. As my noble friend suggested, if these elections were supervised so that the world at large could be satisfied of their authenticity, by something like an International Control Commission, that of course would add inestimably to their value. If the Viet Cong showed any willingness to arrange for them to take place in their territories, to allow the International Control Commission to look after the elections, and were themselves prepared to enter into a truce during the period of those elections—and a truce, I would remind your Lordships, involves not only a truce in the actual fighting but a truce in the build-up of the materials of war and the supply routes also—if anything of that kind were at all possible, I can assure my noble friends and the House that Her Majesty's Government would use their strongest endeavours to persuade—if persuasion were indeed needed—the United States Government to accept such a situation and such an arrangement.

Assuming that such elections, or indeed any elections, were to take place, this does not in any way alter our desire to see that the people of South Vietnam are protected, and to see them enabled to lead the sort of lives they have chosen for themselves. If anything, our desire (and here I believe that the Americans and we are completely at one), our joint desire, would be even stronger when we were assured that the Government in South Vietnam was—I will not say truly representative of the will of the people, but at least more representative of the will of the people than is the present Government.

I was asked by my noble friend Lord Milford, I think in a somewhat rhetorical manner, and perhaps he did not expect an answer, what it is that ties us to the United States of America if it is not dollars, and I am glad to say that he was prepared to accept the fact that it is not dollars. What ties us to the United States is that we both share a belief in the rights of ordinary human beings to choose their own Governments and to lead the sort of lives that they want to lead, and that they choose for themselves. It is that that ties us to the United States and to many other countries.

LORD MILFORD

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, did not Sir Anthony Eden (as he then was) negotiate and bring about the Geneva Agreement, which the Americans did not want and did not stand by?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am discussing the present time, and I think it is better on these occasions not to delve back into the past. We have done that on many occasions in the past, and we all have our different ideas about it. What we now want is to arrive at a solution for the future. And I repeat that what we want to see in South Vietnam is freedom; and I believe that the United States also wants to see that—a freedom not only to choose their own Government, but also to paint slogans on the wall, to which the noble Lord referred; freedom to have the demonstrations which have recently been going on in South Vietnam. We want to see even freedoms of that kind.

Those are not freedoms which exist in Hanoi. Who has seen any slogans painted on the walls of Hanoi saying, "Chinks go home!"? They may be there, but we have not heard of them; and I do not suppose that many people would be allowed to see them. We have not heard of any disturbances in the towns of North Vietnam. Whether or not they take place, I do not know, but I rather doubt whether they do. These are essential freedoms which North Vietnam has not so far been prepared to allow in its own territories.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one question. If he says that we stand for the right of people in South Vietnam democratically to decide their future, can he undertake, on behalf of the Government, that they would accept a decision by an elected National Assembly in September on the question of withdrawal of American troops and negotiation with the National Liberation Front?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I was about to come to that when I made reference and paid tribute to the restrained and helpful speech made by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. Before I come to that particular point, I should like to refer to what she said about small men being bullied by large men. Of course it is always our instinct, when we hear of such an action, or see these things happening, to rally to the support of the small man. I believe that is the right thing for us to do. But we have to be very careful who the small man is; and on that some of us have different ideas.

Is the small man South Vietnam, being attacked by North Vietnam? Is it the United States of America being attacked by China, or North Vietnam being attacked by the United States of America, or the Soviet Union lending its support? People can argue about who the small man may be in such circumstances, but to me the small man is literally the individual human being—the small man who lives in his village in Vietnam, in the delta. Some of them I have seen myself, and in a few weeks I hope to see some more: the people who are attacked by night by terrorists who come to demand food, and who will kill the headman of the village if it is not provided; the man who goes out to till his own plot of land, and plant his rice at the right season, and who may not come back because he has been set upon by others.

I am not saying it is only the Viet Cong who attack the freedom-loving people of South Vietnam. Of course it is not. There are the militarists on both sides. But those are the small men we must try to protect, and do not let us talk in large terms about little Vietnam being attacked by great China, Russia, or the United States. Let us think of the people we are really trying to protect and to look after.

The question was asked by both my noble friends, if these elections are held, and if the result is such-and-such, what shall we do? These are hypothetical questions, but the greatest question mark arising out of these elections is not so much what the result will be but whether all of us here, collectively, can be satisfied that these are genuine elections and that they represent the will of the people. If we are satisfied that the elections have been held throughout a great part of South Vietnam, that they have been justly held and represent the true wishes of the people; and if the Representative Assembly which comes into being as a result of those elections asks the United States Government to withdraw its troops, I believe that the United States Government will do so, because President Johnson has made it quite plain that the wish of his Government in these matters is simply to see that the people of South Vietnam can freely decide their future.

So, although I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of the American Government, I believe that it is what they would do; and I think they would be right to do that. We would encourage them and use such influence as we have to get them to do that. But I would ask, in return, that if these elections do in fact take place, and if we are satisfied that they are representative, and if that representative body asks the Americans to stay to help them, then my noble friends will support the Americans in doing that, because they are expressing the will of the people and helping them to lead their own lives. If that were to take place I do not know whether the war would end very much sooner, but at least we should all be satisfied that the fight was being carried on for the freedoms and for the democracy in which we all believe.

My noble friend Lord Milford said to us, "Let us treat Hanoi as if they are intelligent human beings", and I have no doubt they are intelligent human beings. How would any of us as intelligent human beings treat any other intelligent human being with whom we were involved in a struggle? What should we do? Of course we should say, "Let us talk about it, instead of going on fighting, which can do no one any good", and that is what has been happening, times out of number, over these years.

Unfortunately, we all know the response of Hanoi to this; they have not responded to any of the past approaches that have been made; nor, indeed, to the most recent one made in an indirect fashion by my noble friend Lord Chalfont when he was in Moscow in February and had talks with the Chargé d'Affaires of North Vietnam. No response came to his conversations or approaches. Nor was there any response at all when on April 18 Senator Mansfield proposed peace talks between the United States, North Vietnam, China and essential elements in South Vietnam. He then suggested possibly Japan or Burma as the correct place in which this should be done, and his proposals were endorsed by President Johnson. But North Vietnam, after this approach to intelligent people by intelligent people, rejected it as a new "peace trick", and the Chinese, too, dismissed it as another peace talk hoax".

The only reason I, as, I hope, an intelligent man, can see why they rejected this intelligent man-to-man approach and all those others, is because they believe that they are winning, that they can get their way without having to talk, without having to make any concessions. If that is true, what is the right answer to it? Surely the only answer can be to convince them that they are not winning and that they will not win. That can be the only intelligent way of dealing with this matter. First, and above all, we must convince them that they cannot win, and that is precisely what the South Vietnamese and their allies, prominently the Americans but also the Koreans and others too, the Australians, are attempting to do. In order to do that, they must use bombs and they must use other weapons of war, because this is the most effective way of bringing a realisation of the facts to these intelligent men who live in Hanoi.

And these bombs are directed, as I believe your Lordships know, solely at military objectives. Recently there was some bombing of sites within 17 miles of Hanoi. That is getting close. But, after all, Hanoi is not a city like London; it does not spread out over many miles. These sites were situated there by the North Vietnamese themselves, and they cannot expect that they can attempt to bring down hostile aircraft but have their anti-aircraft sites, their SAM sites, completely invulnerable. They must be prepared to be attacked and they will be attacked. But the attacks are always on military objectives and so they will remain.

I cannot hold out any very great hope of a speedy solution to what is going on there now. It has been with us now for many years and it is progressively getting more serious. But I reiterate once more that the most effective and most likely means of bringing the other side to talks is by convincing them they cannot win, and that entails military action. Secondly, I fully endorse my noble friend Lord Brockway's desire for the elections, and express my hope that these elections will be held over as wide an area as possible and in such a manner as will convince all of us, on both sides, that the results are truly representative of the will of the people; and I hope that the will thus expressed will guide the future activities of all those who are engaged in the country. Finally, let us never forget the individuals who live in Vietnam and that it is really for them and their future well-being that we are all engaged, in one way or another, in this struggle.