RHODESIA (Hansard, 6 March 1978)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen)
I discussed the agreement signed in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa this morning and will be seeing him again this afternoon before he leaves for Washington tomorrow. I am in close touch with Secretary Vance.
Britain and the United States will continue to do everything possible to widen the areas of agreement and to help resolve the major outstanding problems, in particular how to ensure a genuine transfers of power to the majority and stable conditions in which fair and free elections can take place and all the nationalist leaders can take part.

§ Mr. Davies
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the moment has come for him to take a decisive lead in relation to the developments that have taken place? May I ask him four questions?
First, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, can he unconditionally assure the House that, in the event of a motion being put to the Security Council to condemn that settlement, Great Britain will veto it?
Secondly, will he confirm that in the event of the Five Principles being fulfilled, and its being evident that the people of Rhodesia as a whole support the settlement that has been reached, he will move to the abolition of sanctions at an early date?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of his special position to bring every possible persuasion to bear upon the Patriotic Front leaders now to forswear the use of arms and to join in a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia?
Fourthly, as I have so long asked the right hon. Gentleman, will he not now consider it the right moment to install a high-level mission in Salisbury, both to inform himself of the progress of events and to assist in whatever way possible towards fulfilment of the settlement that has been reached?
Finally, may I enjoin upon the right hon. Gentleman the need that this House should at an early date have a full debate on these matters in Government time in order that the views of the House can be 975 fully expressed to him before further action is taken?

§ Dr. Owen
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about a debate. Certainly the Government have every wish to have a discussion at the right and opportune moment.
It is not yet certain whether there will be a debate in the Security Council. I do not believe that it is the right time to have a debate there, but should there be a debate in the Security Council, it is very important that all the nationalist leaders should have the opportunity to attend.
As for what Britain's position would be, I have made it perfectly clear for some months that I am not prepared to condemn or to support what is at this stage an important first step but one on a path along which there is much further to go.
As to the Five Principles being fulfilled, we are in favour of all Six Principles. The fifth is a crucial principle. The time when we would make the final judgment is still open to question. But there is no doubt that the world will expect Britain to ensure that there is a constitution, that there have been fair and free elections and that on independence there has been a genuine transfer of power. The world will not expect us to give away all the things we have on the form of a final settlement until that full transfer of power has taken place.
As for the question of the Patriotic Front, it is a very important part of my role to involve all the nationalist leaders, and I shall do so in every way that I can. This will obviously have to be pursued in further discussions.
With regard to installing a high-level diplomat in Salisbury, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we still have somebody there. It was not by my choosing that the previous diplomat left Salisbury. There may come a time when what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is an appropriate response, and I certainly do not exclude it.

§ Mr. David Steel
Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary agree that the right attitude at present in this country should be to hope that this transitional 976 agreement will lead to a peaceful settlement acceptable to the people of Zimbabwe as a whole? If that is to be the outcome, we would support efforts by the Government, the United Nations and neighbouring Heads of State to encourage the participation of the Patriotic Front. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a test of African opinion will have to be carried out at some stage before the House could contemplate ending its responsibilities for that territory?

§ Dr. Owen
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in stressing that this is a transitional agreement in regard to which there are many major issues still to be resolved. I agree that it is very important to do everything possible to involve the Patriotic Front and all the nationalist leaders. I confirm that there must be a test of opinion—of all African opinon—as to the agreement's overall acceptability. This must take account of the constitution and of the basic change towards a new, independent Zimbabwe.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the opinion of many people in this country when the Opposition spokesmen ask him to take a major initiative they seem to overlook that he and the Government have already taken a major initiative—they took it some months ago—and that the results are beginning to show? It is wholly unrealistic for anyone to assume that Mr. Smith would have moved as far as he has moved without the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend some time ago.
In particular, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is well realised in this country that his co-operation with the United States and the activation of the United States had a great deal to do with the improvement in the position? Will my right hon. Friend take confidence from these points and continue steadily on the line that he has taken and not be rushed into panic decisions by spokesmen of Mr. Smith in the House?

§ Dr. Owen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I have no intention whatever of being rushed. This is a very serious issue which needs to be taken steadily and in good time. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the progress that has been made, which I believe owes much to the Anglo-United 977 States initiative and the steady pressure that has been applied.
I am unrepentant in going for what I believe to be an ideal solution, which is a ceasefire and total participation of the nationalist leaders. I shall still pursue that major ingredient of the Anglo-United States initiative, but I am realistic. It may be that that cannot be achieved, but we should still aim for the ideal solution, a ceasefire, in which circumstances we could be certain of having fair and free elections.

§ Mr. Maudling
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intention to build on what has been achieved in the past week or two. I have two questions to put to him. First, twice this afternoon he used the word "genuine". Does he believe that there is anything in the agreement recently reached in Salisbury which is not genuine? [HON. MEMBERS: "Smith."] This is a very important question. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in any discussions in the United Nations that if agreement can be reached on majority rule and free elections anyone who continues to prefer the bullet to the ballot box will be fighting not for justice but for his own power?

§ Dr. Owen
The use of the word "genuine" was because one can have a transfer of power but it might be open to question. That is one of the reasons we have always thought that any agreement should be judged by the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. That would be a genuine test of opinion. I think that that is the best test that the House, on the fifth principle, has always wanted to see.
As to the result of elections, it has been a central part of the Anglo-United States initiative that there should be fair and free elections and that all the nationalist leaders should participate freely and fairly and no one side should claim a dominant position. That is still our major objective.

§ Mr. Hooley
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if it were suggested that 28 per cent, of the seats in the House of Commons should be allocated to the 3 per cent, ethnic minority in the United Kingdom, it would be regarded with ridicule and derision? Does he not also agree that such a proposition is hardly likely to commend itself either to opinion throughout Africa or in the United Nations?

§ Dr. Owen
I agree with my hon. Friend in the sense that we put forward the proposition that there should be a smaller number of specially elected Members in a larger House. I think that the 28 per cent, proposition does present problems for the whole of the settlement. It has been claimed, and is in part of the agreement, that these 28 Members would not participate in the formation of a Government, and that the 72 Members elected on universal franchise would be the only people who would participate in a Government, and also the only people who would—as I hope—elect the President and, if necessary, perhaps impeach him.
There is no doubt that the arrangement will be greatly criticised. Indeed, it has been greatly criticised already This makes it even more important that the rest of the arrangements, particularly the detail of the constitution, should be negotiated, and seen to be negotiated, fairly and in a way which will ensure majority rights as well as the proper protection of minorities.

§ Mr. Amery
The right hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed the importance of a ceasefire. Does he agree that without Soviet support the Patriotic Front would not be able to carry on military operations for very long? Would he not therefore also agree that, in those circumstances, to press for the Patriotic Front's association with the agreement would, unless it renounces terrorism, in effect be to give a veto to the Soviet Union on any arrangement to express in rather more polite terms what Ambassador Young was saying the other day—that any settlement must be acceptable to Moscow?

§ Dr. Owen
I would not agree with almost anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. The situation is far more complex than that. There is no doubt that the Patriotic Front forces have been able to have training and arms supplies from the Soviet Union and other suppliers. But we have to face the fact that the Patriotic Front forces took up arms in order to try to free their country, and that they have not been able to have armed help from the Western democracies. That was a perfectly legitimate decision by the Western democracies which we all took. We have helped with humanitarian assistance in all sorts of ways but have been unable to give military support.
979 This raises a very serious question. The fact is that if Western democracies hold to their position of being unable to supply arms, the arms will be supplied by other countries. I do not approve of that, but I think that one should not go on to make the assumption that anyone thus armed by the Soviet Union is necessarily Marxist or totally dominated from Moscow. That is not my reading of Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe.

§ Mr. Faulds
As these unbalanced arrangements are unlikely to succeed, will my right hon. Friend maintain his insistence on the inclusion of the Patriotic Front so that there can be some prospect of an end to the fighting? Will he also maintain the imposition of sanctions, which may help to concentrate the minds of the minority regime, which remains in power, and prevent any possibility of back-sliding?

§ Dr. Owen
I want the Patriotic Front to be involved, and honourably involved, in the arrangements for a negotiated peaceful settlement and an independent Zimbabwe. But, as I have said in the House many times, and in Africa and to all the parties, no one side can claim a veto. If we were to accept such a proposition, we would be accepting that people on either side of the dispute could, through force of arms, claim a monopoly.

§ Mr. Maurice Macmillan
Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the Salisbury proposals and the Anglo-American suggestions are sufficiently close together for him to be more likely to be able to involve the Patriotic Front by taking a somewhat firmer line and welcoming the Salisbury proposals somewhat more strongly than he has yet done, rather than giving the impression to the world that he is waiting for the approval of the Patriotic Front?

§ Dr. Owen
I do not think that that is the world's impression. Britain is recognised as being in a unique position. She is seen in the United Nations as the administering Power. There are limits to that, as we all know. But it puts us in the role of mediator, and that is why I think that it would be extremely unwise for us to abandon yet our present position of caution and of being prepared to mediate between all parties.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a Private Notice Question and not a statement. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side of the House and then we must move on.

§ Mr. Whitehead
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that he should take a further initiative in approaching the leaders of the Patriotic Front? Does he not also agree that, while it was right and proper of him to see Bishop Muzorewa and to ensure that he gets a fair hearing at the United Nations, it must be the essence of the matter to secure an agreement between the two African factions, since that is more important than an agreement signed with the illegal regime to the exclusion of the Patriotic Front?

§ Dr. Owen
I agree that it is important to involve the Patriotic Front. I have been attacked many times for my readiness to speak up for the Patriotic Front, but, over the last few weeks, people have seen that I was right to talk to all parties, and that continues to be my position.

§ Sir J. Eden
Does the Foreign Secretary continue to be unaware of the extent of Russian imperialism in Africa and the nature of its aims? Why not take this opportunity positively to welcome a step back towards sanity and understanding between the races in Africa? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not condemn outright the wanton campaign of murder deliberately conducted in the names of so-called nationalist leaders?

§ Dr. Owen
It is because I do understand the nature of the Soviet aims that I am not prepared to combat anti-democratic forces and Communist forces by supporting racialism and people who have, over many years, resisted the movement towards majority rule, thus allowing the degree of anger and resentment to build up that has driven black Africans to force of arms.

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the most obvious and immediate effect of his taking the precipitate decision wanted by the Opposition would be to split the United States from the United Kingdom, with Great Britain supporting one group of African nationalists and the United States supporting another? My right hon. Friend has rightly stressed the importance of the 981 Anglo-American initiative. Is his appraisal of the Salisbury discussions the same as that of Mr. Cyrus Vance?

§ Dr. Owen
Yes. Mr. Vance and I have been in close touch over the weekend, as we have throughout the Anglo-American initiative. I detect no major differences of opinion between us. Of course we have to recognise; that we, with our close and trusted friend, the United States, are working within an international framework. We are also working in the United Nations and we have to take account of the legitimate views of the Organisation of African Unity.

§ Mr. Robert Taylor
Which of the African countries with which the right hon. Gentleman is in touch on this question has a democratically elected Government?

§ Dr. Owen
We can get into long discussion about which is or is not democratic, but few people would argue, for example, that Botswana is not a total democracy in the best sense of the word. Perhaps people want to make disparaging remarks about loyal members of the Commonwealth, such as Zambia and Tanzania. They all have different interpretations of the way to reach democracy, they are good friends to this country, and we should take account of the feelings of their Presidents and politicians.