RHODESIA (Hansard, 14 March 1968)

§ Q8. Mr. SANDYS
To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

§ Q9. Mr. JUDD
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Rhodesian crisis.

§ Q12. Mr. WINNICK
To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Rhodesia.

§ The Prime Minister
With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q8, 09 and Q12.
On 6th March my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary promised the House a considered Government view of the consequences which flowed from that day's tragic events in Salisbury. Since then we have had the further grim occurrence of 11th March. We have also heard with relief of the régime's decision not to proceed with the hanging of 35 men. But we should not forget the very large number of men still lying under sentence of death.
The House would, I know, wish me to take the opportunity offered by the Questions down for answer by me today to review the position as we see it at this moment of time.
May I first expand on my right hon. Friend's statement of 11th March that in present circumstances there can be no question of resuming contacts with the illegal régime.
I should begin by explaining that the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) brought back with him from Salisbury at the end of last month did appear to represent some advance on the quite unacceptable position which Mr. Smith had taken up at the talks my right hon. Friend had with him in Salisbury in November, and which were explained fully to the House on 12th December. But it was by no means clear that the measure of the advance was sufficient for us to regard the new ideas as involving the acceptance of the six principles and thus justifying resumption of contacts with the régime. We 1618 were giving them thorough consideration when the régime itself slammed the door on the possibility of further contacts by proceeding with the illegal hangings of three men and then two more. They did this after long deliberation. No doubt they had considered the consequences of their decision, both in arousing the revulsion and anger of the whole world, and in making it impossible for us to go on considering further contacts with them in the situation which the hangings had created.
A meeting of the United Nations Security Council has been called for and is expected to take place shortly. The House will realise that the passionate feelings aroused internationally and therefore at the United Nations by the executions has created a new situation. It would be wrong for me at this point to prejudge the course of events at the Security Council. But I am sure that the Council will wish to express its abhorrence of the illegal hangings in Salisbury, and that in doing so it will be voicing the feelings of mankind. My noble Friend Lord Caradon will, of course, join in making clear how strongly this House and Her Majesty's Government themselves feel on this matter. As regards practical steps to give effect to those feelings a number of possibilities have been under consideration and have indeed been publicly canvassed, notably the widening of mandatory sanctions to make them apply to the whole of Rhodesia's trade instead of to selected items as at present. We are in close touch through Lord Caradon with other members of the Security Council as we are, of course, with Commonwealth Prime Ministers, on what steps might be taken on these questions. The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee will be meeting tomorrow.

§ Mr. Heath
The Prime Minister's statement obviously raises issues of the greatest importance with which it is not possible to deal adequately in Question and Answer. May I first ask him, therefore, whether the Government would be prepared to give time for a debate on Rhodesia after the Budget debate is concluded, which would presumably then cover the discussions at the United Nations? May I ask for an assurance that the further measures to be discussed by Lord Caradon will not include the use 1619 of force? We do not believe that to institute further measures of the kind the Prime Minister suggests is going to achieve the objective which the Government want.
Fourthly, I have noted very carefully the wording he has used about the proposals brought back by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). The Prime Minister said this was by no means clear. To us, after careful study, it seemed that these proposals were definitely within the six principles. May I express the hope that in the further consideration which the Prime Minister is obviously to have he will come to the same conclusion? Is it not important, at any rate, that the Governor should be able to pursue this matter further to see whether it is possible to bring about a situation which, despite the deep emotions held at the moment, will lead to these issues being resolved?

§ The Prime Minister
First, as to a debate, of course it is right that there should be discussions through the usual channels. Secondly, I cannot anticipate what is likely to be proposed at the Security Council. I think some desperate and perhaps some unrealistic proposals may come forward. As to the use of force, I have nothing to add to or subtract from what I have said on previous occasions.
In regard to mandatory sanctions, which I think was the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, clearly our approach to these must depend on their practicability and effectiveness. This should be the test of any further measures. We have fully carried out the sanctions approved by this House. In other cases these have been frustrated by certain firms of certain other countries. Anything which made them more effective would, I think, be more likely to bring the necessary pressure on Rhodesia to return to the rule of law and would have the support of the whole House.
In regard to the fourth point, the discussions the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) had in Salisbury, it is extremely difficult for me to reply to the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) because none of us, I think, feels 1620 free to indicate the precise proposals made. What I said represents our assessment that while they do represent an advance on the previous position, they do not, we think, fall within the six principles. I have already indicated my reasons for saying that. In regard to the Governor pursuing these proposals, there might have been an opportunity for pursuing them to get them carried further to see if they would create a new situation. But one has to ask when he makes these proposals, with whom would the Governor be pursuing them? Because proposals of that kind, like the "Tiger" proposals, involve a great deal of trust and a great deal of belief on our part—and on the part of the House—that those concerned will not only work the constitution which might be agreed, but will accept the rule of law in carrying it out.
After this recent breach of the rule of law, this flouting of the rule of law, I should have thought it quite impossible to talk to the men who have flouted the rule of law in that way.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Sandys.

§ Mr. Heath
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Heath.

§ Mr. Sandys
Will my right hon. Friend—

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I not hear you call the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman heard me call two right hon. Gentlemen. One courteously gave way to the other. Mr. Sandys.

§ Mr. Sandys
My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister for a debate on Rhodesia. Can I ask for a more precise assurance: namely, will the Prime Minister make sure that the House has the opportunity to express itself on this question before any additional sanctions are approved; and, in particular, will the Prime Minister assure us that if, as is quite likely, at the United Nations a resolution is put forward calling for the use of force, the British representative will not hesitate to vote against it?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that there is a general desire for a debate as soon as we can practically have one. I certainly could not give an absolute assurance that it could be fitted into our 1621 rather difficult Parliamentary time-table next week before final decisions were reached in the Security Council, because it is impossible to forecast the speed of events at the Security Council. However, I hope that before any final decisions are taken shall have the opportunity of a debate. I cannot go beyond that in giving an assurance. Certainly it would be very difficult for my right hon. Friend to give instructions to Lord Caradon to hold up everything at the United Nations until the debate had taken place.
With regard to the second question, what the right hon. Gentleman asks is an entirely hypothetical situation about the use of force. I have already stated the position about our policy with regard to the use of force. I think that perhaps the Security Council will be well advised to proceed on the basis of what is practicable and what is effective, as I have said on a number of occasions; and perhaps a little less forcible talk and a little more practical action on the part of all concerned might get the right answer.

§ Mr. Judd
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, quite contrary to the views of the Opposition as expressed in the House this afternoon, a wide cross-section of public opinion in Britain now wants to see the strongest possible action in dealing with Rhodesia? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does not he agree that it is absolutely essential that we retain the initiative at the United Nations and in the Security Council?

§ The Prime Minister
I am sure that the whole House, apart from those who really support the illegal régime, which is a very small number indeed, wants to see any action taken which will return Rhodesia to the rule of law. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says in the context of strong action, but what we have to ensure is that strong action is likely to be effective and not just strong action for the sake of strong action, which might have the wrong results.

§ Mr. Winnick
Does the Prime Minister agree that the recent actions of the illegal régime have aroused worldwide opposition against that particular régime, including from many sources which were neutral before? Can the Prime Minister tell us of any previous occasion when members of the opposition party in the 1622 British House of Commons have given such strong support to people who have committed treason against Britain?

§ The Prime Minister
I thought that the demeanour of the opposition party last week at this time was very similar to the reaction of by far the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House, in their shock and horror at the hangings which had taken place. [Interruption.] Indeed, that was said last week on the day that the hangings took place. What I think has created this situation—and all of us need time to ponder the implications of this—is that in this case the rule of law has been flouted by someone holding the police power in that country saying that, whatever the highest court of all—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—said, he would not take any notice of it. That, I think, is something which cannot be justified by any hon. Member, and I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who was very critical of our action a fortnight ago, though he has been quiet ever since, has not yet gone on record in supporting Lardner Burke in saying that he would defy the Privy Council.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I have refrained—and I think that the Prime Minister understands why—from giving any details of the proposals. Would the Prime Minister just elucidate something about the principles, because he has suggested that the proposals were not within them? Does not he recollect that he said this on 7th March: Those principles were laid down by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and he has stuck to them ever since, including his recent visit there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 659.] This was the day after I had spoken to the Prime Minister about the proposals.

§ The Prime Minister
I thought it right to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which in Salisbury he made it quite clear that no Government in this country, Labour or Conservative, would go back on the six principles. I think that that was an extremely important and healthy thing to have said in Salisbury. If the right hon. Gentleman asks me to elucidate, I can do so only by going more into the detail than perhaps he would want. However, I do 1623 not think that he would object to my saying this.
One of the key principles—this one was laid down by himself at a time when there were only five principles—is that of guaranteed and unimpeded progress to majority rule. The Rhodesian Front wants a braking mechanism on that, which is contrary to the principle. We have insisted on a blocking mechanism to stop retrogressive amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals, I think that he will agree—or at least the proposals he brought back; I am not fathering them on to him—did not involve a blocking quarter. He will recall that I said to him that, if Mr. Smith is prepared to accept a blocking quarter, why not let us have a figure which is a quarter of the total? This is the reason, as the right hon. Gentleman wanted elucidation, why I feel that there is still some way to go. At the time, and before the hangings, it was made clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we saw no reason why there should not be further probings to see whether we could get that movement to the blocking quarter which he had asked for and which I know he wanted.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Does not my right hon. Friend realise that some of us, probably the majority of us, prefer his cautious and practical attitude in this matter to the attitude of those who are advocating the use of force? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is easy to talk about the need for force, but it is a different matter to use force? Would he at the same time understand quite definitely that in this matter it is for the Government to come to a decision and not to take any instructions, even from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is the last hon. Member in this context that I would be likely to take instructions from. I think that what my right hon. Friend has said about the use of force is extremely wise. I think very many hon. Members in all parts of the House, firmly believing in the rule of law, which has been broken consistently since 11th November, 1965, and most flagrantly in the past fortnight, would feel justified in taking almost any measures necessary to 1624 return Rhodesia to the rule of law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I said those who were concerned about the rule of law would. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that it is not the right way to do it by the use of force. I think that what my right hon. Friend has said is very right.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Whilst accepting the need—

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Come on, bomber!

§ Mr. Thorpe
Whilst accepting the need to maintain the confidential nature of the discussions between the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—whilst I at least accept the reasons for the confidential nature of those exchanges to be maintained, does not the Prime Minister agree that the by-passing of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the flouting of the Prerogative of the Queen give one the least confidence that the spirit of the six principles would be adhered to, whatever agreement was reached?
I should like to ask two questions on sanctions. Will Lord Caradon indicate to those who are most vociferous in their criticism of this country that their criticisms might be more beneficially directed at countries like Portugal, South Africa, France and Germany, which have consistently breached sanctions? Why are we still considering mandatory sanctions and their extension? Why after 2½, years have we not a fully worked out plan?

§ The Prime Minister
The reason for confidentiality is that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire brought back some important proposals which he had discussed in appropriate places in Rhodesia, and it could well be that at a time when we can work towards an acceptable constitution with people whom we can trust to operate it in Rhodesia, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, made with the authority he possesses in these matters, could be helpful and useful. Therefore, I think that it is right that we do not go into them in more detail at present.
But certainly the right hon. Gentleman is right on his second question—and this is what I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition—that we could not 1625 have dealings with people who have flouted lie rule of law in the sense that Lardner Burke did by his remarks about the Privy Council.
I have referred a number of times to breaches of the sanctions, the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's third question. No doubt a tightening of sanctions in the United Nations would help to deal with some of the breaches, including one or two without the existence of which we might have had a very much bigger impact on Rhodesia's economy.
In answer to the fourth question, we have for some time been considering the sanctions procedure, but we shall need to give it more thought in the new situation.

Mr. Colin Jackson
Does my right hon. Friend agree, bearing in mind the judicial hangings that have taken place, that for those hon. Members with some regard for moral law there can be no question in the near future of any resumption of talks with the illegal Smith régime that is engaged in judicial murder? Should not the House now be concerned with how we shall effectively implement further sanctions to bring down the régime?

§ The Prime Minister
On the question of dealing with people responsible for the flouting of the rule of law, I have referred several times to Lardner Burke's and Dupont's responsibility in this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs made clear on 11th March our inability to have any dealings with these people and I repeated that today. With regard to mandatory sanctions, we shall have to see how the Security Council goes.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Has the Prime Minister yet decided a matter about which he was obviously originally in doubt, the question of under which provisions of the Charter the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Security Council? Is he aware that there is a substantial body of legal opinion, as evidenced again today in a letter to The Times, that the reference to the United Nations was misconceived? But since it is within the Security Council now, will he give instructions to his noble Friend Lord Caradon to make it clear that this country will use its power of 1626 veto in the Security Council if the use of force is suggested?

§ The Prime Minister
With regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the Security Council's jurisdiction in this matter, it has always been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, the vast majority of nations and, of course, our legal advisers—because my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was present when the operative resolution was passed in New York—that the Rhodesian situation constitutes a threat to peace—

§ Mr. Sandys
Nonsense.

§ The Prime Minister
—exactly as the right hon. Member for Streatham warned would be the case—and as such is therefore appropriate for action under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. That is our position. I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite are treating with considerable levity the very grave dangers to very many people in Africa, dangers of conflict and worse spreading as a result of the feelings over Rhodesia, which they always take too lightly. That is why we are right in joining with most other authorities in this matter in regarding it as a threat to peace and treating it accordingly.
With regard to the second question, we shall always, of course, reserve our freedom of action to deal with any resolution we consider inappropriate. Certainly, we should consider that it was wrong to agree with any resolution demanding that Britain undertakes forcible measures against Rhodsia, except in the circumstances where we have said that force would be applicable.

§ Mr. Bellenger
The House cannot ascertain what happened when the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire undertook his investigation. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has made remarks this afternoon about those conversations. Is the Government prepared to say, as they apparently were not recently, that the door is now slammed?

§ The Prime Minister
As I said in my original Answer, it was the Smith régime that slammed the door by its illegal action. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who was responsible for bringing these proposals to our attention, himself said last week, 1627 and I think again this week, that in the present circumstances a resumption of talks is not possible.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
indicated dissent.

§ The Prime Minister
I am sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he said last week that in this atmosphere it is not possible—

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Of course, there were, as everybody understood, great difficulties in the way of resuming negotiations. I did not go so far as to say that it was not possible. That is not quite the same thing.

§ The Prime Minister
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It sounded to me to have been put even more strongly; I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that it was ruled out for the time being in this atmosphere. But I give way to his correction. I think that the only realistic approach we must make is that, whatever benefit there might have been in pursuing the point made across the Floor of the House which I mentioned just now about the blocking mechanism, this has been ruled out by the illegal hangings. Giving people a constitution and giving anyone in Rhodesia independence involves a belief in their ability to operate the rule of law afterwards. Their flouting of the rule of law, their defiance and contempt of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council make it impossible for talks with such people.

§ Mr. Maudling
The Prime Minister will be aware that his answers made clear his view that no negotiated settlement is possible in the foreseeable future. In those circumstances, is not it of the utmost importance to be absolutely clear on the question of the use of force? Following my right hon. Friend's question, will he say absolutely clearly and categorically—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that the British Government will not consider the use of force themselves and will oppose its use by others?

§ The Prime Minister
We have always said that we would not consider the use of force for the purpose of imposing a constitutional settlement. That is our position. We have always opposed the 1628 use of force by anybody else. That is still our position. [Interruption.] I shall be ready to listen to the questions of the right hon. Member for Streatham when he will tell us whether he supports Lardner Burke's announcement about the Privy Council. As he is one of the apologists for Lardner Burke in the House, we have a right to know where we stand with the right hon. Gentleman.
We have made clear in the past our opposition to mandatory resolutions involving the use of force by us or anyone else. We do not see any reason to change that position in this situation. We want effective action to get Rhodesia back to the rule of law, and that will be our guide in the Security Council.

§ Mr. John Hynd
Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that expressions of horror at illegal acts do not constitute the exercise of sovereignty? Is it not time that we recognised that we cannot apply our sovereignty over this territory? If we cannot, is it not time that we handed the matter over to the United Nations so that appropriate action can be taken?

§ The Prime Minister
This has obviously been considered, but no one has yet told me how it is to be done. If we passed it by resolution to the United Nations, I have no doubt what that organisation would do. It would pass another resolution and say that it would like Britain to solve the problem on its behalf by whatever means, appropriate or inappropriate, the United Nations thought fit at the time.
It is true, as we all recognise, that we had no ability to stop these hangings two weeks ago, and I know that this is a matter of deep regret to almost every right hon. and hon. Member. But recognition of that inability and of our determination nevertheless to get Rhodesia back to the rule of law is not the same thing as abdication. We cannot abdicate our responsibility.

§ Sir C. Osborne
The Prime Minister is aware that in Rhodesia there is a considerable body of opinion that does not fully support the Smith régime. These moderates have a genuine fear that, if the Prime Minister took the action proposed by some of his extreme followers, he would turn Rhodesia into a second 1629 Congo. That is what moderate people out there fear. Will he give an assurance that as far as he is concerned that will not happen?

§ The Prime Minister
I have already dealt with the question of the use of force, which I presume is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. He must not underrate the deep threat to peace and human life in other parts of Africa as a result of what is going on in Rhodesia.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that there is a minority—I believe it to be a growing minority—of Europeans, as well as Africans, in Rhodesia who are appalled by the irresponsible and illegal acts of the régime. Unfortunately, they are not in a position to make their views effective. One reason why we should continue to pursue the sort of ideas we put forward in the "Tiger", and the variations of those proposals perhaps, following the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, is that at the proper time we hope to be able to work out a constitution with the sort of people we could trust in Rhodesia—people such as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Heath
Will the Prime Minister recognise that before we have the debate it is vital to the House that we should be given the fullest possible information in the form of a White Paper, in particular the judgments of the courts in Rhodesia? Does not he recognise that the situation is now not only a clash with the régime but also, apparently, a clash with the courts, which are recognising not only a de facto régime but also that régime's 1965 Constitution? It is, therefore, very important that the House should be given the whole of this information before it is debated.
Could I press the right hon. Gentleman that he should not continue to uphold the position that no further negotiations are possible in any way? On each previous occasion he has said this, he has had to retract from that position. If he adheres to it now, it means that there is no means of resolving the conflict.

§ The Prime Minister
I stand by the words I used so far as negotiations are concerned. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to 1630 think hard about this issue, having regard to the vital need to maintain the unity of the Commonwealth in the matter and to the widespread international feeling about what has happened during this last fortnight.
I said that any settlement must be with people we can trust to maintain the rule of law and the constitution that we draw up with them, and I would have thought that the House would feel that that would not include people such as Lardner Burke, who signed that affidavit to the courts.
Whatever our view of the reaction—[Interruption.] The hon. Member must realise that we are talking about a situation arising out of the illegal hanging of some fellow Commonwealth citizens. This is not a time for remarks of that kind or for any degree of levity on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the judges. It is not for me to comment on the judge's reaction to the Lardner Burke affidavit today nor on their judgment that it created a situation in which they would not allow the appeal to the Privy Council. While the House might want to comment on these things, as an application has been made to the Judicial Committee for an appeal in respect of the constitutional case, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time, or to attempt to lead the House in any way by further information about the judicial findings. The matter is still very much sub judice.

§ Sir Dingle Foot
Is it not a fact that Rhodesia is being ruled by naked force without any regard to the wishes of the majority of Rhodesians or to the rule of law? In these circumstances, since force is constantly employed on behalf of the oppressors, why is it wrong to suggest that it might at some stage be used on behalf of the oppressed?

§ The Prime Minister
We have many times stated that we think the use of force inappropriate for imposing a constitutional settlement, but that, if it was necessary to restore law and order then, in such circumstances, it might have to be considered. We have, of course—and I was attacked about this across the Floor of the House—used force in support of a particular aspect of our sanctions policy. 1631 But what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) has, I think, in mind, is a very different thing, for that would involve physical entry by British troops, on what would have to be a massive scale and perhaps over a long period ahead, on to Rhodesian territory.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.