§ 2.37 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 why the United Kingdom is not represented by an Ambassador at Hanoi.]
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, it would be inconsistent with the principles accepted at the 1954 Geneva Conference to treat Vietnam as two separate States. We recognise the Government of the Republic of Vietnam which we regard as the successor Government to that which we recognised in 1950 when Vietnam became independent.
§ LORD BROCKWAYYes, my Lords; but is not this utterly inconsistent? Did not the 1954 Agreement recognise the unity of Vietnam, and was not that agreement opposed by the Saigon Government which our Government have recognised? Is it not the fact that the North Vietnam Government is a de facto Government, and that even if we disagree with it we should have diplomatic arrangements with it?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the question of the de facto or de jure existence of a Government in North Vietnam is one thing. The fact is—and it is a fact that has been very adequately underlined by my noble friend—that the 1954 Geneva Conference regards Vietnam as a unity, not as two separate States. It 869 would therefore be incongruous, not, as the noble Lord has said, to ignore this fact, but for us to have diplomatic representation in North Vietnam as well as in South Vietnam, which has what we regard as the successor Government.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lord, while accepting my noble friend's reply, may I ask him whether we can assume that Her Majesty's Government are using their good offices to bring about a peace conference between both sides in the Vietnam war?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to bring about an end to this war. We know, and my noble friend will know, that various discussions are going on to this end, and we shall do all we can to help them along. Indeed, if anyone asks us for our help or for our intervention in this we shall be very ready to help.
§ LORD RATHCAVANMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Although, apparently, we have now no Ambassador in North Vietnam, had we not a few years ago a Consul or Consul-General? I remember distinctly that we had a representative there.
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords; the noble Lord is quite right. We have had a consular post in Hanoi since 1946. The Consul-General there, I regret to say, is not formally recognised by the North Vietnamese authorities as being fully entitled to consular privilege and facilities. He has access only to the Foreign Office Bureau of the municipality of Hanoi, which restricts his activities somewhat. But the noble Lord is right in saying that there is consular representation in Hanoi.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, is the Consul-General then attempting to have some kind of relationship with a Government which we do not think exists?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I made the point quite clear. His relationship is with the municipality of 870 Hanoi, which is a very different thing from the alleged Government of North Vietnam.
LORD 13ROCKWAYMy Lords, in view of the situation in Vietnam, will my noble friend ask his colleagues to reconsider this whole matter? Is it not now becoming clear that the Saigon Government is less representative of the people of Vietnam as a whole than the Government of Hanoi? And ought we not, even as a gesture to securing peace talks, to begin our diplomatic association with the Government of Hanoi?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course I shall represent to my colleagues what my noble friend has said, but without very much confidence that they will reconsider this decision. We regard this division of Vietnam as a matter which only the peoples of Vietnam can resolve. We believe that there should be free elections in both halves of Vietnam, and that the Governments chosen in those elections should freely decide if, when and on what terms they should he reunified into one unity. I really cannot hold out much hope to my noble friend that the question of diplomatic representation will be reconsidered.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, is not the position in Vietnam the same as that in Korea and in Germany?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, there is a superficial resemblance. I should not like to follow my noble friend too far down that road, but I am in sympathy with what he suggests.
§ BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEYMy Lords, is it not a fact that diplomatic representation has to be mutual, and if the Hanoi Government will not recognise our Consul-General is it not very unlikely that they will recognise anything further?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think there is a good deal in what the noble Baroness says. But the fact remains that the real reason why we do not propose to suggest diplomatic relations with the Hanoi régime, is simply the fact that we regard the Republic of Vietnam as being the successor State to the one that we formerly recognised.