VIETNAM (Hansard, 18 January 1972)

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

EARL FERRERS
No, my Lords. The Geneva Agreement (the principle of which, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference we uphold) postulates a single Vietnam, which is temporarily divided. Recognition of North Vietnam would imply that we accept the permanent division of the country, which would be contrary to the spirit of the Geneva Agreement.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, while thanking the Minister may I ask whether it is not a fact, though, that in effect we have recognised the Government of Saigon? Do we not have an Embassy in Saigon? Do not the Saigon Government have an Embassy in London? And. in view of the stability and obvious support of the people, does not North Vietnam now fulfil the criteria for recognition?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, we recognise the Government in Saigon as being successor to the Government of the Emperor Bao Dai in 1950, and we believe that this is the correct method of recognition. As the noble Lord knows full well, the Geneva Agreement postulated a single Vietnam, and it would therefore be unhelpful if we were to recognise Governments in both Vietnams.

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that Answer has been given pretty well "off the cuff" without any thought? Is the Foreign Office aware that Mr. Nixon is now visiting China, and, secondly, that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on page 118 of his book, Full Circle, gave an account of the difficulty he had with Mr. Foster Dulles? Is the noble Earl further aware that the Geneva Convention of 1954 has been broken by every nation in Indo-China? Would it not have been a much more understanding Answer to say, "While the Government are not able to recognise it at the moment, we hope that in the near future we shall be in a position of giving full recognition to this gallant nation, North Vietnam"?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Answer was not given "off the cuff" and if the noble Lord would be good enough to do his homework he would find that it is almost the identical reply which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has received on two previous occasions when he has put down the same Question.

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, further to that, if the noble Lord has been given exactly—I underline "exactly"—the same Answer now as he was given months ago, then God help us because of the myopic outlook of the Foreign Office!

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, would not the recognition of the Government of North Vietnam become more acceptable if the Administration, whatever it may be, in that country recognised one of the principles of the Geneva Convention and released American prisoners of war who have been in their hands for several years? Would not the subject then become more approachable? But for so long as the Government of North Vietnam act as they do and adopt behaviour which is deplorable, can it be expected that we should recognise them?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, we wish to see, as most countries do, a unified Vietnam, but this can be achieved only by the people of Vietnam themselves.

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, further to that answer, is the noble Earl aware that from the days 8 of Grotius, the great Dutch international lawyer, it is an understood course that prisoners of war are not released until the war is finished? With the bombing of North Vietnam, how can we say that the war there is finished?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I certainly did not say that the war was finished, but I think the noble Lord will agree that the subject of prisoners of war is rather outside the original Question.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I get back, without debate, to the Answer which the Minister gave to my original Question? Is he aware that those of us who are aware of the Geneva Agreement will be astonished by his Answer? Is it not the fact that the Saigon Government were not a party to the Geneva Agreement? Also, in view of our recognition of the Government of Saigon, in order to exert influence for peace in Vietnam would it not be desirable to build a bridge of recognition of both, so that we might bring an end to this war, of which even America is now ashamed?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken on one point. The South Vietnamese did not oppose the 1954 Agreement—they accepted it; but they expressed their reservations on the feasibility of conducting genuinely free elections in the whole country.

§ LORD PARGITER
My Lords, will the noble Earl say why the Government of Saigon, which are recognised and which, to say the least, are no more democratic, but probably less democratic than the North, should be recognised and the other Government are not recognised?

EARL FERRERS
Because, my Lords, as co-chairman of the Geneva Agreement we accept the Agreement which postulated a single Vietnam: to recognise two Governments in Vietnam would not agree with this particular premise.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, will not the Minister recognise that that is the essential point? The Saigon Government declined to hold the elections in Vietnam which would have brought about a single Government. Why should we recognise them as the single Government for the whole of Vietnam?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, President Thieu has offered to discuss with Hanoi 9 the holding of genuinely free elections and they have not found it possible to agree to this.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the Minister's original Answer. Perhaps he will clarify it. I understood him to say that the view of the British Government is that there ought to be a single unified Government in Vietnam. Will he explain why that justifies recognising a Government which in fact is a Government of part of Vietnam?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, it was the desire of, and indeed agreed by, the Geneva Conference that a single Vietnam should be the objective, although at the time it was agreed that this would not be possible. It is still our aim that a single Vietnam should materialise.