§ Q5. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.
§ The Prime MinisterI have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 7th March to a Question by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 742, c. 1254.]
§ Mr. WallFor how long is this war of attrition to continue? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take no initiative to break the deadlock, particularly in view of the agreement on the six principles? Is he content to leave the whole matter to the United Nations?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is not a war of attrition. Nor is the whole matter left 449 to the United Nations. Indeed, we took the initiative, although many people thought, or might have felt, that it was wrong to treat with people in rebellion with the Crown. The agreement reached on H.M.S. "Tiger" was thrown over by the extremists in Salisbury. Mr. Lardner Burke, who won the day on that occasion, condemned the six principles. I know, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman voted in the Lobby, that they were supported by him, but we did not support them.
§ Mr. WinnickWould not my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions appear to be biting, and biting hard, in Rhodesia? Would not he also agree that if the Smith regime were to be defeated, there would be many disappointed people on the benches opposite?
§ The Prime MinisterI can only judge by how they spoke and voted last December. It is certainly the case that Mr. Smith has himself now admitted the very grave effect of sanctions in that country, but I am sure that there is no hon. Member in any part of the House who wants sanctions to continue or who wants this situation to continue. It could have been avoided if illegality had been avoided. It could be avoided tomorrow if Rhodesia would return to legality.
§ Mr. LongdenCan the Prime Minister say how many members of the United Nations have responded to the Secretary-General's request to let him know what they are doing to implement this Resolution?
§ The Prime MinisterNinety, Sir.
§ Mr. PagetWhen my right hon. Friend says that it is now all in the hands of the United Nations, is not that just what we warned him of, and now is not the position that the injury to us, to Zambia and to Rhodesia just has to wander on?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I said that it is not—I was picking up a question put by an hon. Member—entirely in the hands of the United Nations. We have kept it in our hands. But the sanctions, approved by this House with the wide support of hon. Members in all parts, had been frustrated by the actions of other countries. This is why we took the matter to the United Nations.
§ Mr. ThorpeCan the Prime Minister say whether he has made inquiries as to the accuracy of the allegations that regular units of the South African Army have moved into Rhodesia in civilian clothes, and are now serving with the Rhodesian Army?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I had not heard those allegations. I have no reason at all to think that they are true, but since the right hon. Gentleman has raised them I will, of course, make inquiries.
§ Mr. BellengerIn view of the substantial concession my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make to the Rhodesian Government last year, will he now do something more positive and try, either through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to get the Rhodesian Government to renegotiate?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Rhodesian régime had the opportunity in December. The terms we put forward were fair—to many people we were unduly fair in what we suggested—in the sense that we were giving them the chance of independence within four months and leaving them free, despite their act of illegality, to go on running the country in return for certain assurances that not every hon. Member here was as prepared as we were to accept. Since then, they have been told repeatedly, and I have said it in this House, that they can come at any time to the Government and say they want to return to the 1961 Constitution or to the 1961 Constitution amended to give effect to the six principles agreed on H.M.S. "Tiger".
§ Mr. MaudlingCan the Prime Minister give the House any details of the effects of sanctions to date? Does he intend to propose any new initiative, or merely continue to let events take their course?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are naturally considering all the time whether new measures are needed to tighten up the sanctions, and if any Orders are required the House will be asked to pronounce on them. But I think that the Rhodesian regime now know—they had their chance last December—that we are prepared to go on with these sanctions as long as illegality continues. The existing sanctions are already having a serious effect— 451 the second tobacco crop, and the rest—and they must draw their own conclusion from this. The whole thing means that they were concerned only to get their so-called independence, which no one else recognises. That was more important to them than progress on the honourable terms we offered them.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingIn order to amplify his earlier reply that 90 nations have replied to the United Nations question about sanctions, can the Prime Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the nations that have replied, and whether they have replied in the negative or the affirmative, or have procrastinated?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but if an appropriate Question is put down I will certainly see that one or other of us answers it, and gives the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.