South Africa (Hansard, 18 December 1985)

§ 9. Mr. Bowen Wells
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for its foreign policy generally of Her Majesty's Government's refusal to impose full economic sanctions on South Africa.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)
The South African issue has wide implications for foreign policy as a whole and we have, therefore, maintained close consultation with other Governments. We are party to common statements of policy, both with our European Community and our Commonwealth partners, which stop short of the imposition of full economic sanctions.

§ Mr. Wells
Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that if we are not able to make progress in South Africa over the next six months, and if we do not go along with further sanctions being demanded by our Commonwealth friends, we shall be subject to discrimination by those Commonwealth countries against our own trade?

§ Mr. Rifkind
There have been differences of view on this subject for many years, and I emphasise that the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa is a view shared not only by the United States but by almost the entire European Community and most of the other countries of western Europe. We are not alone in our view of the matter.

§ Mr. Caborn
What actions have been taken on the sanctions to which the British Government agreed through the EEC and Commonwealth conferences? We are led to believe that there have been no restrictions on imports of Krugerrands, and that the withdrawing of military attachés, which is part of the EEC agreement, has not been done. How effective have any sanctions to date been, because many people are saying that the Government are bringing us into disrepute in the international community by not even implementing, in the Prime Minister's words, the "teeny weeny" sanctions agreed at the Commonwealth conference?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in part of his question. The withdrawal of military attachés from European countries is not part of the Luxembourg package, although it is under consideration. The South African Government have stopped minting Krugerrands, and there has been no market in Krugerrands for a considerable time.

§ Mr. Forth
Has my hon. and learned Friend's Department made any estimate of the potential effect on employment in both this country and South Africa if full mandatory economic sanctions were ever applied?

§ Mr. Rifkind
It is difficult to make a precise estimate, but it is known that there are at least 150,000 black South Africans employed by British companies in South Africa, and there have been estimates of up to 50,000 British jobs that could be directly or indirectly affected by a policy of sanctions.

§ Mr. Spearing
Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government are still not in conversation with the African National Congress? Is the Minister aware that a week ago, in front of the Select Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that he did not know whether the United States was in direct conversation with the ANC? Does he know, and if so, will he tell us?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I have no reason to believe that the United States Government have been in contact with the ANC.

§ Mr. Hill
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members realise that economic sanctions against South Africa would have enormous reverberations throughout British industry? I make this point in particular in relation to the port of Southampton, where the dockers are still working the South African marine trade because that represents one third of their container traffic. If the Government change their course on economic sanctions, many will be unemployed.

§ Mr. Rifkind
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of the debate about economic sanctions. The Government's opposition to economic sanctions is partly for the reason set out by my hon. Friend and also because we do not believe that such a policy would succeed in achieving the fundamental and peaceful change that we all wish to see in South Africa.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the Minister aware that members of the State Department ' have been in continual contact with members of the ANC, and that such contacts took place in the recent visit of Mr. Chester Crocker to Lusaka? Why has the Foreign Secretary refused to allow the British Foreign Office the same freedom to investigate the situation as is allowed by the American Secretary of State to the American State Department?

§ Mr. Rifkind
We have always emphasised that we look forward to the day when the African National Congress will renounce a policy of violence. We believe that the Commonwealth initiative, agreed at Nassau, which called for dialogue between black and white South Africans in the context of a suspension of violence on both sides, ought to be an incentive to the African National Congress as well as to the South African Government to desist from any acts of violence, in the interests of reconciliation.

§ Mr. Beith
What incentives are the British Government giving to the South African Government to respond at all to the Commonwealth initiative, since they know that even if the initiative is a failure there will be no escalation whatsoever of sanctions by the British Government? Is it not a relief that at least the banks, on commercial grounds, are prepared to impose economic sanctions on South Africa?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the South African Government have already said that they are prepared to consider contacts with the Commonwealth group that was set up at the Nassau summit. That is an encouraging sign. We believe that the Commonwealth group, which includes representatives from all sections of the Commonwealth, could make an important impact in persuading all parties, including the South African Government, of the need for very early dialogue and reconciliation in that country.

§ 10. Mr. Winnick
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest representations by Her Majesty's Government to the South African authorities on developments in that country.

§ Mr. Rifkind
On 11 November we participated in a demarche on behalf of the 12 European Community countries expressing to the South African Government our deep concern about restrictions imposed on the press, violent police methods of riot control and the continuing arrests of political and trade union leaders. On 3 December we issued a statement about the killings at Mamelodi, in which we called for a full inquiry.

§ Mr. Winnick
Is the Minister of State aware that we welcome the fact that at least one or two Tory Members of Parliament are speaking out on this issue, unlike the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and one or two others, who seem to act in the House of Commons as representatives of the South African Government? When will the Minister realise that only when sanctions are applied by this country and by our partners in the European Community will the South African authorities understand that we are serious in opposing their vile system of government in that country?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman always insists upon attributing bad faith to everybody except himself. He ought to realise that people can honestly hold different opinions from his own without justifying the rather nasty comments that he insists upon making on every occasion. As for sanctions, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there is a common desire to see peaceful, fundamental change in South Africa, but there is a genuine difference of view as to whether mandatory sanctions would bring it about.

§ Sir Peter Blaker
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is to be any chance of achieving a solution to the problems of South Africa which is fair to all races in that country and which does not involve immense bloodshed, it will be by encouraging a dialogue between the people of South Africa? Does he further agree that it is at least not self-evident that economic sanctions are likely to achieve that process?

§ Mr. Rifkind
Not only is it not self-evident, but we know from experience that whenever a policy of mandatory economic sanctions has been applied it has conspicuously failed to achieve even a limited degree of success.

§ Mr. Pike
Bearing in mind that all methods, over many years, to try to persuade the South African Government to end their abhorrent policy of apartheid have failed, should not the Government be saying that now is the time to introduce economic sanctions? Should we not take an 296 example from the history of this country and remember the deprivation that was suffered in the cotton textile industry when efforts were made to end slavery in America?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that a slow but definite process of reform has begun in South Africa. For example, a recommendation has been made by the President's Council that the pass laws should be repealed. If, as is widely expected, the South African Government endorse that recommendation it will represent a fundamental move in the right direction. It is exactly reforms of that kind that we should be encouraging.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that while it is helpful to make strong and constructive representations to the South African Government, experience shows that mandatory economic sanctions are completely counter-productive and only do damage to this country?

§ Mr. Rifkind
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that fact. Many of those who call for economic sanctions emphasise their view that it would be worth making a short sacrifice of a few months, or even a year or so, to achieve the end of apartheid. The sad fact, as we saw in Rhodesia, is that even after 15 years it was not economic sanctions that brought about change in that country.