|
I am grateful to have the opportunity of putting forward the
Liberal point of view on this matter. After listening to this very
interesting and vital debate, I find that there is a certain amount of
confusion, particularly among those on the official Opposition benches about
the difference between appeasement and common sense. It seems that some
hon. Gentlemen are still under the shadow of Mr Neville Chamberlain’s
umbrella.
There is also a certain amount of Commonwealth sentiment here.
I am very much pro-Commonwealth, in many different ways, but I would say that
the quickest way to bring to an end the risk faced by Commonwealth troops and
American troops and airmen in Vietnam is to bring the parties concerned to
the conference table. I should Like to explain why we on the Liberal
bench cannot support American action in Vietnam. It is not
because we are anti-American it is simply because there is no genuine
political objective in what the Americans are doing.
Their action is thoroughly self-defeating. If they
achieved a military victory, and this is questionable, although they may
obliterate the strong points and occupy the cities and towns, it is unlikely
in my view that they will be able to occupy the terrain and eliminate the
guerrilla forces they are up against. Even if they did this, there will
still be the threat of political collapse in South Vietnam, in the rear.
It must be appreciated that there is a wide gulf between the
South Vietnamese military junta and the South Vietnamese people. In
this policy of escalation a point will reached, is bound to be reached, when
China will hit back, Possibly it will be when it appears that North
Vietnam is on the point of collapse; possibly it will happen if the Americans
go on with their bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong
and extend it to the great dykes which would bring the people of North
Vietnam face to face with starvation. From there it is only a small set
to the railways on the borders, the nuclear installations along the Chinese
border, the oil uranium and other mineral deposits and sources just the other
side of the Chinese border.
If China comes in, what
will Russia do? This is
the big question. We should appreciate that Hanoi is protected by
Soviet missiles. I am given to believe that there was a tacit understanding that as long
as no bombs were dropped on Hanoi, no Migs would be put in North Vietnam. But that
tacit understanding is finished, and it remains to be seen what will
happen.
There has been no historical summary in the debate of what has
gone before, I will not try in the time at my disposal to try t
summarise the history of the last few years, but one or two facts should be
pointed in order to arrive at a sensible conclusion to the debate. It
is interesting that before 1885, Annam,
which was the old name for Cambodia, Laos and
Vietnam, was part of the Chinese Empire – at least, it was one of those
States which paid tribute to the Chinese at the time of the Manchu dynasty.
I miss out the
long period of French colonial rule.
The French annexed the country in 1885. During the period 1940-45, the National
People’s Party and the Buddhist Party, which are very much concerned in South
Vietnam, collaborated with the Japanese under Vichy French direction, whereas
on the other side the Communists with, oddly enough, Chinese Nationalist
support, formed a united anti-Japanese organisation, the Vietminh, with Ho Chi Minh, founder of the Vietnamese Communist Party, as its
first general secretary. Bt the
Vietminh was a party which incorporated certain nationalist and other non-Communist
elements.
In 1945, shortly
before the Japanese surrender, they dissolved the Vichy French Administration and established an independent Vietnam under Bao Dai. It was after the Japanese surrender had
been accepted by the British and the Nationalist Chinese that the
independent republic of Vietnam was
set up by the Vietminh, with Ho Chi Minh as
President, The French, when they took
over control were fairly conciliatory in what was going on. In North Vietnam, the Vietminh at first co-operated with the
non-Communist group. There was also initial co-operation with the Nationalist
and Buddhist Parties.
In January, 1946,
a provisional Government of the Democratic Republic Organisation organised
elections in North and Central
Vietnam and in the areas
of South
Vietnam
which it controlled. It achieved a
majority but with nationalist groups represented. The Chinese Nationalists withdrew and in Hanoi – this is where the Western nations first slipped up
– the French gave official recognition to the new Government of the
Democratic Republic and agreed to withdraw by 1952. A referendum was to be held to see whether South Vietnam would join the North, but it was nevr
held and the French established a provisional Government in South Vietnam.
From then on,
relations deteriorated rapidly.
Naturally, Vietnam considered this a breach of agreement and war
commenced with the French bombardment of Haiphong. It was not until three years later that the Vietminh
allegiance to Communism was openly proclaimed and they broke with the
non-Communist elements. Later the
French set up a rival non-Communist Government in Saigon with a claim to the whole of Vietnam and with the puppet Emperor, Bao
Dai. His Government was recognised by
the USA, the Untied Kingdom and most other Western countries. This was the first occasion on which the
Americans became vitally interested in what went on in Vietnam. The Communist
countries recognised the Vietnminh.
I do not want to
go on with this story indefinitely because it gets incredibly
complicated. But when the Geneva conference was convened under the joint chairmanship
of the USSR and the United Kingdom, there was agreement on a ceasefire and the
regroupings north and south of the 17th parallel and free civilian
movement across the Parallel.
An international
control commission was set up with representatives from India, Canada and Poland, and there was agreement to hold reunification
elections throughout Vietnam in 1956. At
that point, the USA reserved their position in support of the Bao Dai Government.
The French had withdrawn by that time. When, a little later, Diem
started suppressing the nationalist and Buddhist parties which still
supported Ba Dai, there was a rigged election and
he came to power. From 1961 onwards,
there was a steady build-up of US forces.
In 1963, pro-Roman Catholic and anti-Buddhist discrimination by Diem
started. We all know the rest of the story.
We now have North Vietnam with a population of 17 million controlled by the
Communist Party, the
Vietcong, with Ho Chi Minh as President. On the other side, we have the Armed Forces
Congress, with US support and Marshal Ky as Prime Minister.
I am going through
this background simply to show that if anyone still thinks that this is a
straightforward case of containing Communist aggression, he is wildly off the
mark. South Vietnam is not independent in any sense/ The United States pay for practically everything including 80 per cent
of the budget. Formerly a big exporter
of rice, it now has to import it in very large quantities. Apparently the Vietnamese officials are so
corrupt that the Americans have had to introduce direct administration at
every level. The South Vietnamese Army is largely an army of mercenaries, and
something like 50,000 Vietnamese have left constructive employment in the
rice and rubber plantations to earn very high wages building bases and
airfields for the Americans. No wonder
the Vietminh doubt whether the Americans really intend to get out. Are these bases and so on being built
permanently?
Apart from the
economic disruption, there is the senseless brutality of it all. I should like to quote from something
written by a French expert on the country.
He is a journalist who was an adviser to de Gaulle. He has been in the country for many years
and knows it inside out. His name is
Robert Guillain, and he may be known to some hon.
Members. He says
…the
spectacle of heavily-armed white men killing badly-armed yellow men is having
a devastating effect throughout Asia.
He estimates that
in 1965 alone, nearly
100,000 were killed in bombing attacks, bot
to mention those maimed or half-burned with napalm. He goes on
There
is one element which does not figure in American computers, and that is the
incredible Asiatic capacity of suffering and resistance. The Vietnamese are even tougher in that
respect than the Chinese and Japanese.
At guerrilla war the South Vietnamese are better than the North
Vietnamese, and much better than the Chinese ….Moreover they are sly, cunning and
virtuoso at playing a double game. The
Americans just didn’t know what kind of country they took on. The longer the
war and the occupation last, the more likely will there be a rising of a
whole people. The war and the G.I.s are, every day, creating more resistance than all
the propaganda of Hanoi and Peking. The USA can destroy the
country entirely with their bombs; they will not be able to hold it or
occupy it indefinitely.
This is not a
choice between Communism and democracy, but between the nationalist Communist
movement on the one hand, and a corrupt and indeterminate regime which will
have to be upheld by American presence far into the foreseeable future,
whatever the military outcome may be, on the other.
There is no
disloyalty at all in criticising the action of the Americans. Members of the Opposition would do well to
recall the United
States
criticism of their government at the time of Suez. There is a
further parallel, because some 30 US Senators and 80 Congressmen are opposing President
Johnson’s policy, just as many hon. Members of this House opposed the
Conservative Government policy at the time of Suez. A man whom I
know personally and for whom I have immense respect Mr.
Kennan who was formerly US Ambassador in the
USSR, has also publicly taken the same view as those
Senators and Congressmen who differ from the view taken by President Johnson.
As I say, it is
not a war to contain Communism, and those who think that it is should do a
short study of Communist expansion. It
has never had much success except in the wake of a war and through the medium
of some indigenous nationalist Communist movement, sustained on economic
disruption. Communism may have some
theoretical attraction as a short cut to higher living standards, but ore
often it is simply a cloak for nationalism. Naturally, China wishes to secure her position. For decades she has been surrounded and
ostracised. No doubt she would like to
bring under her control all the former provinces of the Ching
Empire – Manchuria, Mongolia, Turkistan and Tibet – and she would probably
also like to neutralise the countries
which at one time paid tribute to the Ching dynasty
– Nepal, Burma, Siam, Annam and Korea.
I said
‘neutralise’ but I do not believe that China’s territorial ambitions extend any further except possibly, and this is interesting, in the Sinkiang area and Amur River area of the USSR. It is worth
remarking that Mao Tse-tung laid claim to Vladivostok in 1964.
The great danger
is that American action will force the Soviet Union into supporting the Vietcong openly,
and that in turn could encourage China to take off her kid gloves. In fairness, we should remember that the United States rejected all suggestions for negotiations with the North Vietnam Government or the National Liberation Front until
April last year. Two years ago,
President Johnson dismissed General de Gaulle’s call for an international
conference with the famous words
We
do not believe in a conference called to ratify terror
Certainly, no
conference has ratified the bombing of Hanoi.
As late as
February, 1965, the United States stated that a Communist cease-fire was an essential prelimnary to any negotiation. In April, 1965, admittedly, they offered
unconditional discussions, but immediately repeated the objective as the
independence of South Vietnam, which in itself is a condition contrary to the Geneva Agreemnts of 1954.
The North Vietnam Government have expressed willingness to negotiate,
provided that reunification is the ultimate objective. Their attitude, although it has hardened
lately, still suggests
that the condition of United States withdrawal need only be accepted in principle before
negotiations. The Chinese attitude is
far less compromising. The United States air offensive undoubtedly prevents the USSR at the moment from following an independent policy.
The only sensible
solution, in our view, is that the United States should confine her military
action in Vietnam to the defence of the areas which the United States forces
can effectively control, something on
the lines of the Fulbright Plan, while conducting at the same time a peace
offensive to bring the parties concerned to the conference table.
Britain and the
USSR should use their influence, such as it is, to reconvene the Geneva Conference.
Whilst we welcome the Prime Minister’s forthcoming visit to Moscow, and wish him the best of luck in his visit, we
should first dissociate ourselves from American Action in North Vietnam.
It is fashionable
to be a cynic, but it is neither over idealistic nor too late to secure a
cease-fire and peaceful reunification of North and South Vietnam on te basis of withdrawal of United States forces to
fortified areas, cessation of al bombing attacks, and an undertaking that in
due course the Untied States forces will be entirely withdrawn from Vietnam,
leading finally to elections supervised by an international control
commission, which would have to remain until an elected government was in
control.
There seem to be
just four points in dispute. The United States will not negotiate with the National Liberation
Front. They have also said that they
want free elections in South Vietnam. If they would agree to negotiate with the National
Liberation Front and agree to free elections throughout Vietnam, the position from their point of view would be
entirely changed.
On the other side,
the North Vietnamese wants want United States withdrawal as a preliminary condition. They also want no intervention by the
United Nations. If they would be prepared to concede on these two points, I
see no reason why a solution should not be found within a reasonably short
time.
Back to top
|