HL Deb 08 May 1968 vol 291 cc1469-71
LORD BROCKWAY

My 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 whether, in view of the facts now revealed about the Tonkin incidents which led to American bombing of North Vietnam, they will reconsider their support of such bombing.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)

My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been devoted consistently to securing an end to all the fighting in Vietnam. This, of course, includes the bombing of the North as well as military action in the South. Nothing that has been said or reported about the incidents to which the noble Lord refers in any way affects this policy.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and appreciating what the Government have done in the cause of peace, may I ask him this question? In view of the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in America, after study, decided that the bombing was precipitous and based on inadequate information, and that Senator Fulbright, who moved the acceptance of the bombing, has subsequently said he regretted this more than anything in his life; and in view of the need to find a successful outcome of the peace negotiations which are now beginning, would not Her Majesty's Government use all their influence to slop the bombing which is taking place in North Vietnam, the cessation of which U Thant says is necessary in the cause of peace?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, the views of Senator Fulbright and the Secretary-General of the United Nations are, of course, of great interest and value in this great debate, but I think it would be wrong if I allowed my noble friend to imply that in some way the American bombing of North Vietnam followed immediately and precipitously, as lie has put it, after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As he will well know, the American response to the incident was a singe raid on the base from which attacks on American ships were launched, and there was no other bombing offensive against North Vietnam for at least six months after. It does not help matters forward one bit at this particular time to single out one or other method or weapon of way being used by one or the other side. I am sure we are all gratified that these peace talks are about to begin, and I think that what we must do is to try to persuade both sides to put an end to all the fighting.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that Her Majesty's Government, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, have consistently followed a policy of neutrality in relation to the bombing of North Vietnam, and that there is no evidence to suggest, as is suggested in the Question, that Her Majesty's Government have supported the bombing?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I think it would be wrong of me to agree entirely that the position of co-Chairmanship of the Geneva Conference implies some position of absolute neutrality. In fact, it is well understood, I think, that both co-Chairmen have their interests in this conflict and cannot indeed regard themselves as entirely neutral. We do not regard ourselves as entirely neutral. Although we have deplored such bombing as has taken place on towns like Hanoi and Haiphong, we have not been prepared to go further than that.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—I do not want to say one word that is going to make the peace negotiations more difficult—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

LORD BROCKWAY

I say that sincerely. Is my noble friend aware that not only the Labour Party Conference, and the Trades Union Congress and the Liberal Party Conference, but also the United Nations Association and the British Council of Churches have all urged that this bombing should stop, in order that peace negotiations should begin? Is it not a contribution towards that end if one urges that course, which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has urged?

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, I certainly, for my part, have no doubts whatever about the sincerity of my noble friend in this matter; he has demonstrated it many times before. But I really feel that at the moment it would be wrong to press the United States for further concessions. They have made an unconditional cut-back in bombing in an attempt to bring this matter to the conference table, and I think it would be wrong to press for further concessions while the nature of the response is uncertain. We will do all we can to help in this matter, but I feel that prudence and a certain amount of reticence are what is required of us at the moment.