Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent official proposal of the Hanoi Government that it would negotiate only when bombing ceased, the National Liberation Front or a South Vietnam coalition including the National Liberation Front were an independent party to the negotiations, and if the latter were directed to implementing the 1954 Geneva Agreements,...
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with President de Gaulle at their Paris meeting on Great Britain's eventual entry into the European Economic Community as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with a special relationship to the United States.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Did not the Prime Minister send President de Gaulle the text of his Strasbourg speech in which he referred to the object of strengthening the Atlantic Alliance and entering the Common Market? Did the President make clear that he has withdrawn his previous objections to Britain entering on that basis?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with the Governments concerned, during his recent discussions on the European Economic Community, on the amendments to the Rome Treaty required to make possible the planning of the economy of the United Kingdom on the lines considered necessary by the Government.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 3rd August, 1961, he told the House that it would not be possible to plan the economy on the lines considered necessary by Labour without substantial amendments to the Treaty of Rome, and that he repeated that statement on 7th June, 1962, and 1st August, 1962? Has he changed his mind on this issue, or have our partners agreed to those conditions?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Control Commission set up under the 1954 Geneva Agreements, what information he has received from the Commission about the bombing by United States and South Vietnamese forces of schools, hospitals, temples, and homes in North Vietnam, including residential quarters in Hanoi.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Do my right hon. Friend's replies mean that the Government have gone back on their undertaking to dissociate themselves from the bombing of Hanoi? Is it the position that the Americans are entitled to the mass murder of civilians by their bombing in order to force them into unconditional surrender or unconditional negotiations, which would be contrary to the Charter?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Does my hon. Friend know that, whereas only 5 per cent. of our total exports go to South Africa, 30 per cent. of their total exports come to this country, so that it is not we who should be afraid of South Africa but South Africa which should be afraid of us?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) over the whole field. I want to concentrate on two points. The first is the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the United Nations is not something to be preached; it is something to be practised, and we must deal with the fundamentals of our policy. The second...
Mr Konni Zilliacus: I agree that that is important and encouraging. It would be the Parliamentary basis for working out the idea of an agreement between the two alliances. That sort of move is now in the air. Let us examine a little more closely the revival of German nationalism, and the alarm that it has excited. I do not believe that it will as things are become a major menace because, (a) Germany is not...
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is correct, as stated, that the United States Administration propose to deduct any saving on exchange by withdrawing troops in Germany from the offset payments which they have promised to make.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Would the hon. Member not agree that the argument that we sign the Rome Treaty as it stands first and then find out what it does to us is like saying, "Sign that contract first and then find out what it does to you"?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Does not my right hon. Friend recall the strong objection made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition, that an international nuclear force was an insuperable obstacle to an agreement with the Soviet Union on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? Will he also bear in mind what the Soviet leaders have been saying about the impossibility of reaching agreement on these matters so...
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to President Johnson that Her Majesty's Government cannot support proposals to Hanoi to enter into unconditional negotiations so long as a United States force remains in South Vietnam, since the United Nations Charter prohibits resort to force or threats of force as a means of settling international differences.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that, as he himself has said, unconditional negotiations leave the Americans free to propose anything they like, and to threaten the renewal of hostilities if they do not get what they want?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government, in their capacity as co-chairman under the 1954 Geneva Agreement, will reject any proposal for treating the provisional military demarcation line in Vietnam as a territorial or political boundary, which is inconsistent with the agreement.
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Is not this country a party to the 1954 Geneva Agreement which provides that Vietnam is one country, the unity of which must be respected, and is not the Prime Minister prepared to live up to that treaty obligation?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: Will the Prime Minister make clear that the Government stick to their view that they will not proceed with an Atlantic Nuclear Force including Western Germany if that means sacrificing the chance of agreement with the Soviet Union on a non-proliferation agreement?
Mr Konni Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister how far it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as set forth in the White Paper on the economic situation of 26th October, 1964, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th November, 1964, that in order to pay for its economic and social policies defence expenditure must be cut below the then current (1964) level of £2,000 million a year, even on the...
Mr Konni Zilliacus: As the increase in the gross national product has barely topped 2 per cent., is it not now necessary to go far below £2,000 million a year at 1964 prices to meet the present crisis? Will the Prime Minister rest assured that he will have massive support on this side of the House and in the country for really drastic cuts in defence expenditure?