§ 1.2 a.m.
§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)I wish to draw attention to the problem of British subjects illegally detained in Rhodesia. One of the first acts of the illegal Smith régime in April, 1964, was the arrest of Joshua Nkomo and a number of other Africans. Mr. Nkomo and his colleagues have been detained without trial ever since then.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition flew to Salisbury in the following year, in 1965, he saw Nkomo and other detained African leaders, but he did not demand that they should be released or put on trial as a condition of talking to the man who was about to declare U.D.I.
U.D.I. was denounced as an act of rebellion by my right hon. Friend. He believed that this act of rebellion could be brought to an end, as he said, in weeks rather than in months, and brought to an end by simple economic sanctions. This mistaken belief was doubtless part of the reason for the use of force being rejected. But there was no excuse for the public announcement of that decision, unless it is true that intimation was received from leading army officers that they would refuse to fight white men on behalf of black men, even if the whites were traitors 1117 and the blacks were loyal subjects of the Queen. I should like to know whether there is any truth in that statement.
But, however that may be, it should have been a condition of the recent proposed settlement with the Smith régime that all persons detained without trial should be released. Instead, leading British figures from all sides of this House and of the other place have been content to go to Salisbury and hold discussions with these white gangsters while all the time upwards of 70 or so African men have been detained for, now upwards of 10 years, and they remain illegally held in detention.
One wonders at the sense of priorities of some hon. Members who can detect so easily the distant odour of Soviet persecution but seem oblivious to the stench under our nostrils for which we in the House are personally and individually responsible, every one of us—although none of us, except myself and the Minister who is to reply, is present on this occasion.
Shylock pleaded for the common humanity of the Jews. It now seems necessary to remind everyone that those with black skins are not less entitled to our compassion, indignation, protest and determination, though there is precious little sign of it. Do the Government believe that if the same public indignation had been seen on behalf of Daniel Madzimamuto, whose detention was declared illegal in 1968 by the Privy Council, and on behalf of other black detainees, these men would still be in gaol? I doubt it. The very selectivity of our compassion deprives it of force. We are like people calling over the fence to neighbours to stop ill treating their son but oblivious of the fact that in our own back garden our psychotic white relation is trying to beat to death his black brother.
I do not overlook that our own practice of detention without trial in Northern Ireland diminishes our standing to rebuke Smith and his mob. But we could try. The Government are not trying. They have not raised a finger or uttered a whisper, let alone a shout. Mr. Josiah Chinamano, a man respected by all who know him, was detained with his wife without charge in April, 1964. Their five children were left without parents 1118 to look after them. They were released in 1970, only to be arrested again earlier this year. Mr. Chinamano's health has sadly deteriorated.
I do not believe that the settlement proposals—whether or not the best which could be obtained—were worth while. I do not believe that any agreement with Smith which this country could, perhaps, reach and sign with honour would be worth the paper it was written on. It follows from the racist nature of the Rhodesian Front that it would overthrow any leader who put his hand to a civilised document or who agreed to release African kept in prison without trial. What can we do? I do not believe that racist régimes or racists can be appeased. They could not be appeased when they were wearing the Nazi uniform, and they cannot be appeased now that their herrenvolk notions have been adopted by whites, some of whom once spent the finest hours that they are ever likely to live in fighting against the kind of doctrines which they now espouse in a different context.
The 1971 negotiations were a waste of time, but if they had not taken place we should not have had the Pearce Commission, and the naked facts about Rhodesia would not have been exposed for all to see. Above all, we should have heard the African voice loud and clear saying "No" to tyranny, as all men everywhere, given the chance, will always say.
What do we do now? Do we just keep on sanctions? This is what I want to hear from the Government arising from this discussion. If it is the Government's intention to keep on sanctions, that would be something, but it would hardly be enough. This is the crunch and we now either harden or weaken. In fact, there are some disturbing signs that the Government are moving in the direction of weakening rather than hardening.
Lord Goodman has said that if on the day of UDI the Labour Government had sent in a single platoon of Scots Guards by air and had caused them to march up the main street of Salisbury under a pipe band with instructions to arrest Smith, there would have been no opposition and that would have been the end of the Rhodesian rebellion. Whether that 1119 is the case, no one can now tell. However, I still think that the Smith régime is something like a house of crooked playing cards which can be blown down by the deployment of force without the necessity for much combat. However, whether or not it is now too late for military intervention by United Kingdom forces, we should make it clear that we support those loyal British subjects in Rhodesia, of whatever colour, who seek to overthrow the régime which has usurped the authority of the British Crown in that country.
Sadly, I am persuaded that men unjustly imprisoned can seldom be talked into liberty. The Africans of Rhodesia will take their own freedom. The need, therefore, is to recognise that the sooner that occurs the less will be the bloodshed. The sooner the Africans of Rhodesia acquire their own freedom, the less serious will be the consequences to the white minority of that country. The longer the white minority hangs on to power, the more disastrous are the consequences ultimately likely to be for them.
If it is the case that we can no longer donate freedom to the Africans of Zimbabwe, we can at least not hinder their struggle. I hope that when a Labour Government return to power, they will recognise that their rôle is not to seek to impede what a recent Fabian pamphlet refers to as an inevitable revolution in Rhodesia.
If by a miracle those men detained in Rhodesia without trial were to turn white overnight and Smith and his men were to turn black, suddenly it would be found possible to rouse the western world and mobilise force for the release of the detainees. Within weeks rather than months they would be free. If that is so—and I have not found anybody to argue the contrary—we could have found ways and means to release them 10 years ago. It also means that the reasons why the Government are inactive is the colour of the men in prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman murmurs that this is not the case. If it is not the case, let the Government bestir themselves and not sit idly by while year after year men rot in camps, families disintegrate, and conviction becomes certainty in African minds that only by force can human dignity be restored to their people. 1120 At present the African National Congress is pacific. Bishop Muzorewa wants to talk. Smith is the one who refuses to talk. At this point the British Government should be exercising massive pressure upon Smith, in the interests of his own people, to agree to a conference, which he refuses to contemplate.
What are the Government doing? Do they recognise their responsibility? If so, what are they doing to implement it? What steps are they taking to intervene in what is essentially our own back yard? It is our area of responsibility. This is what I hope to hear from the Minister. What are the Government doing and what do they propose to do? If they are not trying to influence Smith, if they are doing nothing to secure the release of the detainees, are they making representations about the conditions in which many of the detainees are held?
The settlement proposals were found to be unacceptable because, among other objectionable features, they provided for continued detention without trial of anyone the Smith régime cared to imprison. From the point of view of the present detainees, there was neither justice nor morality in the proposals. They were to be left in detention, many of them during and after the signing of a settlement. The fact that the proposals were rejected was a triumph for those in Rhodesia who would not agree to leaving their sons, their brothers, their fathers, their friends, and their leaders in detention.
Therefore, why are these settlement proposals, as the Foreign Secretary still states, on the table? Is the important factor that they remain acceptable to Ian Smith? Is not the Foreign Secretary interested in the fact that Lord Pearce reported that there was never a time when the Africans who rejected the proposals would have said, "Yes"? Does the Foreign Secretary have any concept of how Africans in Rhodesia feel when they have had these rejected settlement terms left on the table and when they hear the Foreign Secretary state that it still cannot be too difficult to reach a settlement with Mr. Smith?
Above all, can detainees have the slightest shred of confidence left in Her Majesty's Government when, far from it being apparent that the Government are interested in procuring freedom for those untried men who have stood against the 1121 act of treason and against the illegal régime, it seems that the Government are conniving in their continued detention? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". After the Chinamano and Todd arrests, Mr. Philip Mansfield, head of the Rhodesian desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was sent to Rhodesia. What did he do to secure the release of the Rhodesian detainees? Whom did he see? Did he make any attempt to visit the detainees themselves?
After Judith Todd was released from prison and detained at her home, why did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office state, through the British Embassy in Pretoria, that it would consider renewing her British passport only after she had been released from detention and after she had received the permission of the Rhodesian authorities? This loyal British subject was to receive the permission of the traitorious régime before Her Majesty's Government were prepared to renew her passport!
Why do the Government extend such grudging and limited concessions as, for example, permitting Miss Todd to enter the United Kingdom for six months and then requiring her to re-apply for a permit to stay here after that time?
Why, in short, do the Government appear to defer to the wishes of the Smith régime rather than do all in their power to secure the release of people like Daniel Madzimamuto, held for so many years in detention without trial and without charge? If the Government can do nothing else, they can at least desist from approving any illegal detention without trial in Rhodesia, as would have happened had the present proposals been accepted.
I do not seek to pretend that the situation in which we find ourselves is easy, that it was easy for the previous Government or is easy for this Government, but the posture and general direction of the Government attitude in this matter leave much to be desired. They appear to be moving in the direction of rowing along without hardening up against the régime which has nothing of which I hope any Government in this country would approve.
I hope that the Minister will say firmly that it remains the intention of Her Majesty's Government to oust the illegal régime as soon as possible.
§ 1.21 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw)I understood that the hon. Gentleman would speak about detainees, but he has made many general observations about the situation in Rhodesia and has expressed himself in strong and sometimes fantastic terms, none of which will do anything to bring about the period of sober reflection which, as all parties know, is the best thing for Rhodesia today to make racial co-operation easier.
It is not the policy of any Government to use force, and it would fatally increase conflict in that part of Africa to start war for that reason.
The hon. Member has impugned our sanctions policy. He knows that on 15th June the Secretary of State said that santions would remain at the status quo and he knows that we are not about to take off sanctions. The hon. Member referred to the colour question, but we had a full debate on 15th June. In making his remarks in this pejorative way, the hon. Member has done no service to those he seeks to help.
I came to answer what I thought was a debate particularly about detainees, and it might be useful to state the facts and to summarise recent events so far as I know them. I make that last caveat because, in the absence of any representative in Salisbury, our sources of information are limited.
Detentions are one illegality among many. They were already illegal at the time of the Labour Party Administration. First, I should emphasise that Her Majesty's Government are concerned about detentions in Rhodesia—extremely so. Those detained are British subjects and persons for whom we still have responsibility.
Our concern was reflected in the attention we devoted to this matter during the discussions in Salisbury last November:
As hon. Members know, the proposals provided for the release of 31 detainees, in addition to the 23 who had been released since March, 1971. These 31 were, in fact, released, and some of them played an active part in the campaign for rejection of the proposals.
There was also provision for a special review of the cases of all remaining 1123 detainees to see whether, in the light of changed circumstances, they could be released. The review would have been carried out by the existing tribunal, of which the chairman is a judge of the Rhodesian High Court, as soon as possible after the test of acceptability had been completed.
The recommendation of this tribunal would have been binding on the detaining or restricting authority. For the purposes of this special review an observer appointed by Her Majesty's Government would have been entitled to be present.
Unfortunately, this proposal, following the rejection of the terms of settlement, has been lost, along with the many other advantages that would have accrued to the Africans. It is ridiculous to call rejection of the proposals a triumph for the detainees. It is exactly the opposite.
I will now outline developments in the situation with regard to detainees in Rhodesia. The present detention orders are made under the emergency regulations which have been in force since 1965, although emergency powers have existed in Rhodesia since 1959. Each case is reviewed annually by the review tribunal chaired by a member of the Rhodesian High Court.
But the present situation is not a new one. Detention and restriction were first introduced by the Whitehead Government in February, 1959. At that time there were 510 detainees and restrictees. In February, 1967, 170 people were in detention and 450 in restriction. At the time of the "Fearless" talks in October, 1968, there were 133 people detained.
By March, 1971, the number had fallen to 116. Between March and November, 1971, a further 23 were released, and, in anticipation of a settlement, the Rhodesian authorities subsequently freed 31 more leaving, early this year, a total of 62 in detention and two in restriction.
Five additional persons were subsequently detained, including Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter Judith and Mr. and Mrs. Josiah Chinamano. As the House knows, Miss Todd has been released and is now in this country. One other detainee has just been released to come to this country. Thus, we believe that there remain 65 people held under ministerial 1124 detention orders. Of these many have been detained for a number of years.
In addition to those detained by ministerial order, a number of people were detained under 30-day orders made by the police while the Pearce Commission was in Rhodesia. About 1,700 people were arrested in connection with the disturbances that broke out in January, but we believe that most of them have either been released or charged and convicted of criminal offences.
Her Majesty's Government shared the particular concern of many people in this country over the detention of Mr. Todd and his daughter and of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano. My right honourable Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made representations to Mr. Smith but no satisfactory reason for these detentions was provided.
As my right honourable Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in this House on 14th February, the Government regret these detentions and deplore the absence of any reason having been given for them. Lord Pearce was equally concerned about these detentions, but he failed to obtain any information from the Rhodesian authorities about their reasons for them.
Mr. Todd has been removed from prison and detained in his home at Shabani, as was Miss Todd prior to her release. She has been admitted to this country on a visitor's entry permit, which is the correct way in which she could come in. The six-months' period is the normal time, and no restriction on employment has been placed upon her because of the special conditions attaching to her difficulties.
The conditions under which Mr. Todd is detained have thus improved, and I understand he is now allowed to receive some visitors. Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano have also been removed from prison and are believed to be living near Marandellas, where they are not subject to the rigours of prison life and may be visited by their children. Naturally, we welcome these alleviations, though we regret that they continue to be deprived of their liberty.
Some concern has been expressed in the past about the health of Mr. Todd 1125 and his daughter and of Mr. Chinamano. As far as we are aware, Mr. Chinamano's health gives no cause for concern at present, and, despite a rumour to the contrary, we now understand that Mr. Todd is well.
Her Majesty's Government are also concerned about the welfare of the other detainees. We have, as in all other spheres in Rhodesia, no power to ensure that conditions are such as we might wish. There is some safeguard, however, in the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross is able to visit the detainees periodically.
In addition, Amnesty International provides funds for the benefit of detainees and their families through Christian Care, which assists detainees' families and provides training, rehabilitation and educational facilities, including correspondence courses, for the detainees themselves. This valuable help goes some way towards easing the worries of the detainees and making life in detention less frustrating and wasteful.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should demand very strongly the release of the detainees. I must point out that at the moment, because the settlement has not gone through, we are in no position to insist upon it. We have no power to insist. During the negotiations we devoted a great deal of time 1126 to the position of the detainees, and some improvements were made. This has certainly made the atmosphere much more difficult for them.
Finally, I must again stress that Her Majesty's Government have no power to control events on the ground in Rhodesia and that, much as we may regret it, there is little or nothing we can do about detentions there. We believe that the proposals for a settlement represented the very most that could be gained for those in detention, and, had the proposals been accepted by the Rhodesian people as a whole, it is not unrealistic to suppose that the improved atmosphere could well have created a situation in which the Rhodesian authorities felt able to adopt a less restrictive attitude.
But, now that the settlement has been rejected, the outlook for the detainees is far from promising. We can only hope that the opportunity for reflection and consultation which is now available to all Rhodesians will bring about a new situation in which progress can again be made towards a generally acceptable settlement, which would in turn go a long way towards solving the problem of the detainees.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.