§ 3.19 p.m.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they support the United Nations Secretary-General in his proposal that there should be a cessation of United States bombing in North Vietnam to be followed by a peace conference in Geneva.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, the Government has made quite clear its belief that President Johnson's offer at San Antonio provides a fair and reasonable basis for the cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam: and that preliminary talks should be followed, at the right time, by a peace conference.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, is it not a fact that in March of last year the United Nations Secretary-General proposed that there should be a cease-fire, and that this proposal was accepted by the United States of America and rejected by the Government of North Vietnam? May I take it that Her Majesty's Government will co-operate fully with the endeavours of the Secretary-General to achieve a general cease-fire as a prelude to a settlement by negotiation of this terrible conflict?
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords. It is, of course, true, as my noble friend knows, that the Secretary-General made 678 this proposal last March for a total military standstill in Vietnam as a first step towards negotiating a peaceful settlement. We welcomed those proposals at the time—regrettably, they were rejected by Hanoi—and I can assure my noble friend that we shall naturally welcome any suggestion that will bring about a total cease fire. Hanoi have it in their power to advance this by accepting the San Antonio proposals. In this way a cessation of the bombing would be brought about; and if they proposed any further reduction in military activity, if they proposed a total cease-fire, then I am sure the United States would respond. We all know that if Hanoi showed the slightest sign through some unquestionable channels that they were prepared to come to the conference table, the bombing would cease. Hanoi knows this perfectly well.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, is it not the case, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, implied in his supplementary question, that the United States has always accepted every proposal for peace discussions and that they have always been unfortunately rejected by the Communists?
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords, that is substantially true. It is true, also, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations believes that an unconditional cessation of the bombing would lead to peace talks. Unfortunately, at the moment we have no evidence, other then U Thant's obviously sincere convictions on this point. But if Hanoi is sincere in wanting talks, it should not be difficult for them to convey this clearly and directly to the Americans. So far they have not done so.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, is my noble friend absolutely convinced that Hanoi is a completely free agent in being able to open these negotiations? If not, is not the continued bombing in North Vietnam not only morally wrong but utterly inexcusable?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, in the case of the Vietnam war I am not completely convinced about anything. But if the Government in Hanoi was really sincere in a wish to have talks with a view to bringing this war to an end, I am sure that, whatever may be their 679 freedom of action, there is no reason why they should not be able to convey their wishes and their feelings about this to the United States Government. One thing I am convinced about is that the moment this feeling was conveyed the bombing would stop, and we should be on the road to negotiation.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer—and I do not wish unduly to press the point—is he absolutely convinced that if Hanoi were prepared to open negotiations they would receive the support, not the opposition, both of China and of Soviet Russia?
§ LORD CHALFONTNo, my Lords, I am not convinced of that, and it would be wrong of me to say that I was convinced of it. But those who ask the United States to take action in this affair, either by stopping the bombing or by other unilateral military action, should. I think, be prepared to accept that the United States are most reluctant to do this without some sign from Hanoi, with or without the agreement of whoever they may have to agree with, that negotiations towards a legitimate and effective settlement in the area would follow. I think this is a reasonable attitude by the United States Government.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that the United Nations Secretary-General has stated that if the bombing of the North were stopped, then, in his view, Hanoi would be prepared to enter into negotiations, not within weeks but even within days? Is not the difficulty that the United States are asking that any infiltration from the North to the South should cease, and could not this be solved by the proposal that at such talks following the cessation of bombing of the North the proposal for a total cease-fire should be placed first upon the agenda?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, as I said earlier, it is true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations believes that if there were to be an unconditional halt to the bombing there would rapidly—within perhaps a matter of weeks—be peace talks. I repeat that there is no evidence other than that. The United States has made many a proposal and 680 many an initiative on this subject, the most notable of which is the San Antonio formula which would include the cessation of bombing and a halt in the intensification of military effort in the South. There has been no response to this by the Hanoi Government. I do not think it unreasonable that the Government of the United States should expect a response from the Government concerned, whatever may be the sincere convictions of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, is it not true that support for the Secretary-General's proposal is rapidly gaining ground in the United States?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, it may be that the views of the Secretary-General are gaining support in some quarters in the United States. I do not have any clear or incontrovertible evidence of this. But it seems to me that the real answer here is that if the Government of Hanoi are really prepared to come to the negotiating table upon the cessation of bombing, they have only to say so. They have clear lines of communication which will get through to the United States Government in a matter of hours. They know this. They have only to make the sign and we all know, and they know, that the bombing will stop at once.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is it not a fact that each time the United States has stopped bombing Hanoi has used the interlude to build up forces? At the same time, could my noble friend say on what grounds U Thant is building up this hope? Surely he is a very responsible official and will not just be "playing a hunch" in regard to this matter. Therefore, could my noble friend assure us that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do everything possible to cause America to listen to U Thant's proposal, naturally assuming that U Thant will give some information about the basis for his opinion.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, it is of course true that in the past unilateral action by the United States has been followed by a period in which the buildup in the South has continued, and it is this that makes the United States, I think, somewhat cynical about the undoubted convictions of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I can, 681 however, assure my noble friend that we shall do all we can to help the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam. As my noble friend will know, we did put him in touch with the North Vietnamese representative in Paris when he was last here in an attempt to advance his cause. We shall continue to co-operate with him to the best of our ability and hope that he will be able to help in bringing about an effective and just settlement in Vietnam.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, would my noble friend make it clear that the policy of the United States Government is not confined merely to an offer to cease bombing with a view to a conference, but that they are quite ready to agree to a general cease-fire as a prelude to a conference?
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords. This is the position of the United States Government and, as I say, all we need now in order to push this forward is some kind of clear response by Hanoi to this very unequivocal American offer.