§ 48. Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the 175W United States Government's representatives in Washington; and, in particular, what is the Government's policy regarding the resumption of the bombing of North Vietnam by United States forces.
§ Mr. M. StewartI have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself during the debate on 8th February.
§ 51. Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD that part of his letter to the hon. Member for Barking, dated 4th February, 1966, referring to the use of chemical sprays in Vietnam.
§ Mr. M. StewartI am arranging for the whole of my letter to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) of 4th February to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member has agreed that his letter should be published with it.
Following are the letters:
27th January, 1966.
The Rt. Hon. Michael Stewart, M.P.,
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
Downing Street, S.W.1.
I should be obliged if you would consider the enclosed letter from a correspondent who is a constituent of Peter Agnew's, to whom he has also written.
Is it, in fact, the case that the Americans are spraying the rice-fields—presumably with poison—in order to create starvation? If so, is such action justifiable, even on the loosest interpretation of what is legitimate in war, and is it likely to enlist for the Americans and the South Vietnamese Government the sympathy of the possibly neutral peasants, whose main source of food is thus destroyed?
I hope that it may be possible for you to exercise some influence on the American Government to check this inhumane practice.
Yours sincerely, (Signed)
TOM DRIBERG, M.P.
Foreign Office, S.W.1.
4th February, 1966.
Tom Driberg, Esq., M.P.
Thank you for your letter of 27th January with which you enclosed a letter from a correspondent about Vietnam.
I understand that measures are taken to destroy rice crops or rice stores which are known to support the Viet Cong in South Vietnam. The aim is certainly not to create starvation amongst the people, but to cut off the supplies which sustain the Viet Cong 176W guerrillas. I understand too that the spray is designed to kill the rice but is not poisonous: it is equivalent to burning or blowing up a store of rice once collected and held for Viet Cong supplies.
Nevertheless such activities inevitably must sometimes hurt the innocent and I would only say once more what I have said on many occasions in the past year, that the conflict in Vietnam causes terrible and widespread suffering which we should all be determined to bring to an end; the only way to bring this to an end is to stop the fighting and it is those who insist on continuing the fighting who must bear the ultimate responsibility for the devastation now caused. We have just seen the failure suffered in recent weeks by the United States in their efforts to bring about negotiations. In earlier months we saw the failure of the efforts from many different quarters to persuade the North Vietnamese to negotiate. We must continue to hope that they will change their attitude. Meanwhile the British Government will continue whatever the disappointments to strive for an end of hostilities in Vietnam and a settlement which will at last bring a secure peace to that country.
(Sgd.) Michael Stewart.
§ 58. Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the facts that the policy of publicly supporting the United States war in Vietnam while privately working for peace in Washington has failed to check the intensification and spread of the war and of its menace to world peace, and that this policy has left Great Britain in a small minority on the Security Council and in the Commonwealth, and is rejected by a wide section of the British people, he will now reconsider this policy.
§ Mr. M. StewartOur objective remains the promotion of a negotiated settlement in Vietnam and I am confident that this will continue to enjoy the support, both at home and abroad, of all those who reject the idea of a military solution.