§ Lord SHINWELLMy 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 any action has been taken by the Security Council of the United Nations against the Government of Vietnam to prevent the compulsory exodus of many people who have lived in that country for years.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the responsibility of the Vietnamese Government for the exodus is undeniable. It involves much hardship and death for the victims and poses grave problems for the countries of South-East Asia and Hong Kong, where the boat people arrive. Our own efforts have been devoted to ensuring that a special conference is convened urgently under the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary-General has now decided to convene such a conference in Geneva on 20th and 21st July.
§ Lord SHINWELLMay I ask the Minister two questions, my Lords? First, are we to understand that at this conference in Geneva the Soviet Union and the Chinese People's Republic will be represented? If not, why not? Secondly, is it not a fact that the responsibility for much that is happening is due to previous action by the Soviet Union and the Chinese People's Republic? Would it not have been wiser for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for whom I have the highest regard, instead of troubling too much about Hong Kong to have pressed on 362 behalf of Her Majesty's Government for the Security Council to be convened immediately, so that the two countries who are highly responsible for the trouble should have an opportunity of explaining their inability to act?
§ Lord TREFGARNEThe noble Lord raised a number of points there, my Lords. Certainly the countries to which he referred will be invited to the conference which is to take place in Geneva later this month, although I cannot yet say whether or not they will accept the invitation. Recourse to the Security Council cannot be ruled out at some stage. I recall that on the last two occasions, in January and March, when the Security Council debated events in Indo China the Soviet Union exercised its veto.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is it not highly unsatisfactory that the noble Lord—I do not blame him for this—is unaware whether those two countries will be represented at the Geneva conference? If they are not, the conference deliberations will be futile. Surely that is the essential prerequisite of any, even possible, approach to a solution of the problem. Why has that not been considered? In any event, are we not to have a guarantee that those two countries will be represented at Geneva? Otherwise we shall be wasting our time.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we cannot force them to come to Geneva if they do not want to.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Shinwell in the main point he made in regard to the forthcoming Geneva conference. We had a similar conference about two months ago, the Minister will recall, when my honourable friend Mr. Luard represented this country. We thought we were getting somewhere at that conference, but in fact it proved abortive. I wish from this Bench to support what Lord Shinwell said about the need to impress on the Secretary-General—who, I take it, will be convening this conference—to have present all the relevant countries, including the perpetrators and originators of this infamy.
§ Lord TREFGARNEWe agree, my Lords, that all the relevant countries 363 should be at this conference, and we agree that it would be desirable for the Vietnamese to be there, but I am not hopeful.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, would it not be counter-productive to bring this matter before the Security Council, when to do so would simply encourage the Soviet Union to apply its veto? Would it not be much more sensible, by all means in our power, to get them to attend this unofficial non-Security Council meeting?
§ Lord TREFGARNEIt is certainly our view, my Lords, that the conference in Geneva is a desirable precursor to any meeting of the Security Council.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister, but if he agrees with what I said, supported by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts—that those two countries should be represented at the Geneva conference but will not be so represented—may I ask whether it is not essential for Her Majesty's Government to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations? After all, the Security Council is responsible for dealing with international problems, and this is not an individual national problem but a world problem. It is therefore the responsibility of the Security Council, otherwise the Security Council might as well be disbanded, and be done with it.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, if the Security Council met and any effective resolution was immediately vetoed by the Russians, I do not think anything very concrete would have been achieved. As for the conference in Geneva, we hope that all the important countries will be there, but we cannot force them to be there, and I have no doubt that the world community in general will draw their own conclusions if they do not go.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I have no desire to press the Minister for the wrong reasons, but there is a point here—
§ Several noble Lords: Question!
364§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, is the Minister aware that, while he is right that the conference should be held first, before recourse to the Security Council is practically considered, that course should not be ruled out? Nevertheless, it is plainly useless to go to Geneva to discuss theoretically what should be done and what might be done when the people responsible not only for originating this infamy but for continuing it are not there. I should like to ask the Minister to be a little firmer and more forthright in his indications to the Secretary-General that this country not only asks, but insists, that the other countries mentioned be present at the conference.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I have expressed our view that it is desirable for these nations to be present at the conference, and I repeat that now, but I am not sure how we insist upon it.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, given that at least 50 per cent. and possibly two-thirds of the people driven from Vietnam die in appalling circumstances before reaching the safety of dry land, would not the noble Lord agree that the Vietnamese Government's actions constitute in fact genocide, which is of course an offence under international law? Whatever other international action ought to be taken in consequence, would not the noble Lord agree that every encouragement ought to be given to the United States Senate to delay ratification of the SALT II agreement until such time as the Soviet Union has brought effective pressure to bear upon its protégés in Hanoi to cease their barbarous and genocidal activities?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am afraid that I could not link the ratification of the SALT II treaty with this matter.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, with great respect, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he and Her Majesty's Government would consider the suggestion that I have ventured to make, supported by other Members of the House, that if the Geneva Conference takes place and it does not deal with the question of the exodus of people from Vietnam, the responsibility should then be placed on the Security Council? May I have his agreement to that?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the suggestions of the noble Lord will always be closely considered by any Government, and I will certainly see that his latest one is brought to the attention of my noble friend.
§ The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames)My Lords, time moves on, and perhaps we should proceed to the next Question.