§ 3.24 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 whether they will continue to support United Nations recognition of the deposed Pol Pot Khmer Rouge Government in Kampuchea in view of the increasing evidence of its policy of genocide, including the uncovering of a grave in the south of the country containing the remains of 66,000 people, and the acknowledgement by Jeng Sary, the Khmer Rouge Foreign Minister, that 15,000 persons were tortured and executed at the Tuol Sleng interrogation centre.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, we need to make it clear to Vietnam that her attempt to occupy Cambodia and impose an unrepresentative Government on that country is not acceptable to the international community. Accordingly, and in common with a growing majority of member states of the United Nations, we have felt it necessary to maintain the existing position on the Cambodian seat at the United Nations. Our own position is of course clear. We withdrew recognition from the Pol Pot régime in December 1979.
§ Lord BrockwayYes, my Lords, but do the reasons which the Minister has urged justify the recognition of the Pol Pot régime? Would he not agree that it has been the most barbarous since the time of Hitler? Is it not quite extraordinary that recognition should be given to a régime which has no control of the territory and has the support of only 30,000 soldiers and their dependants who are in rebellion against the de facto Government? Is not this an amazing decision to reach?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the history of the Pol Pot régime is quite appalling, but, frankly, the position we have to adopt in connection with the United Nations seat, which is the subject of the noble Lord's Question, is the lesser of two evils.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyIs that really the case, my Lords? Would the Minister not agree that the Government's position in this matter is very inconsistent indeed? On the one hand, they do not recognise the Government individually, while on the other they support a completely incongruous decision by the United Nations. Will they look at this again?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, we do not recognise Governments at all nowadays; we recognise the existence of states, so the question of recognising one Government or another in Cambodia does not arise.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, the word "recognition" was just used by the Minister himself.
§ Lord TrefgarneNo, my Lords; it was used by the noble Lord opposite.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyNo, it was used by the Minister.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, reverting to the Minister's first Answer, may I ask if he has read, as I am sure he has, the documents in the Foreign Office of the exchanges between the Vietnam Government and the Pol Pot Government? If he has, as I have, may I ask if he would agree that those exchanges showed the most conciliatory attitude by the Vietnam Government and left no doubt that it was the Pol Pot Government which first invaded Vietnam and which has led to the present situation?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the fact remains that the Vietnamese puppet Government in Cambodia—which is what it is—arrived there at the tail of a column of troops, and that is not the sort of thing to which we can give any kind of approval.