§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on what response he has made and what further steps he proposes following the massacre of blacks in South Africa.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on 22 March strongly condemning the shootings at Uitenhage and calling for the fullest possible investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) summoned the South African ambassador. We view the latest events in South Africa with abhorrence. The deaths are particularly tragic, not only because they occurred on the anniversary of Sharpeville but because they fly in the face of certain more hopeful developments in recent months. We will continue to use all our influence to press the South African Government to introduce the fundamental reforms so clearly needed.
§ Mr. AndersonI welcome that response, as far as it goes. Does the Minister not recognise that this massacre, on the 25th anniversary of the massacre at Sharpeville, shows the reality of oppression in today's South Africa and the clear failure of the policy of constructive engagement pursued by this Government and our United States partners?
Since the Prime Minister welcomed President Botha to Chequers on 2 June last year, we have seen, first, the imprisonment of Union Defence Forces leaders and, secondly, the craven British Government response to the Coventry four affair. Are the British Government to continue a policy which consists only of good intentions and of the Minister periodically wagging his finger at the South African ambassador, and which makes us trail behind even right-wing Congressmen in the United States? They do so by ruling out in advance the only policy that could bring effective pressure on the South Africans, which is selective disinvestment. Will the Minister now take the lead in urging the Reagan administration to develop a common western policy on selective disinvestment until Namibia is independent and the end of apartheid is nigh and also join in the Dutch initiative within the European Community on the UDF show trial which is shortly to take place?
§ Mr. RifkindI and, I am sure, many others find it difficult to understand why, if a policy of dialogue is thought to be appropriate for totalitarian states in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union it is always thought to be inappropriate for the South African Government. If we are seeking to influence the leaders of those countries to adopt a more constructive and sensible policy, to refuse to talk to them seems to be a rather negative way of furthering that objective. As for the hon. Gentleman's call for economic sanctions, I have to remind him not only that the last Labour Government believed that such a policy would be inappropriate but that black opinion in South Africa is deeply divided on this issue. Opinion polls conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council and by Professor Schlemmer showed heavy majorities among blacks in South Africa against such a policy. This is also the view of leading black South Africans.
§ Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)Would this not be a good moment to remind the South African Government of the fact that they accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 435 relating to the independence of Namibia?
§ Mr. RifkindI agree with my hon. Friend that Security Council resolution 435 has been accepted by all the parties interested in the future of Namibia. It is very much to be regretted that there has been very little progress over the implementation of that resolution.
§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)Probably what is wanted for South Africa is a policy of sticks and carrots. It is right to have a dialogue, but it is also necessary to exert pressure. Will the Minister of State consider whether a system would be devised whereby no new investment is made in South Africa unless it is clearly geared to black well-being? If such a policy were to be linked with progress towards abolishing apartheid and the implementation of Security Council resolution 435, it would gain a great deal of support in the United States.
§ Mr. RifkindI notice that the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday in his Sunday Times article:
Total or even selective trade sanctions will not succeed.I presume that that is still the view today of the right hon. Gentleman. One would have to examine the likely consequences of any such measure in order to decide whether it would achieve the advantages which are often advocated. We are all anxious to press South Africa to introduce real reforms, but there is deep scepticism as to whether economic sanctions would bring that about.
§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)Will my hon. Friend accept that the whole House wishes to express great regret at the sad deaths of the blacks in the eastern Cape and, indeed, at the surrounding circumstances? Will he also accept that this is not the time for recrimination or sanctions, that we should acknowledge that substantial changes have been made to the South African constitution and that State President P. W. Botha has made a genuine case for reform? Now is the time not for those on the Opposition Benches to parade their consciences but for co-operation in order to try to show sympathetic understanding of the dilemma which the South African Government face.
§ Mr. RifkindI am certainly prepared to acknowledge that in recent months there have been some important and significant changes in South Africa. However, events such as the one to which this question refers inevitably call into doubt the possibility of the South African Government pursuing the kind of fundamental reforms that are necessary to prevent events of this kind from happening again. We welcome the fact that there is to be a full and independent judicial inquiry into the killings. We hope that that inquiry will not only ascertain the full facts but, if appropriate, will ensure that the necessary action is taken against those responsible.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Do not the words uttered by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) shame the House of Commons and do not these tragic events demonstrate how little has changed since Sharpeville and that the bullet and the whip remain the hallmark of the apartheid regime? Instead of wining and dining the Prime Minister of South Africa at Chequers, would it not be far better for the British Government to 22 show how serious they are about apartheid and, with the United States and other western countries, try their utmost to help to defeat and isolate the apartheid regime?
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Gentleman is ignoring some of the important and positive changes that have taken place in recent years, such as the legalisation of black trade unions, the extension of 99-year leasehold rights to blacks in South Africa, and the realisation and admission by the South African state President that the homelands can offer no answer to the political aspirations of urban blacks. Those and a number of other changes are positive and are in the right direction, but we must emphasise to the South African Government that South Africa and its problems clearly need fundamental reform and that simply to tinker with the existing system is not enough.
§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government's policy remains to support political evolution rather than revolution in South Africa and that such an end will not be achieved by the imposition of sanctions which would be unworkable and counter-productive, and, in the end, would harm most the black populations of southern Africa?
§ Mr. RifkindI agree that it can be in no one's interest, black or white, for political change in South Africa to come about by violent means. We hope that the South African Government will appreciate that the best way of avoiding such events would be to enter into a real and sustained dialogue with the genuine leaders of black opinion in South Africa.
§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)Is it not now super-abundantly clear that the policy called constructive engagement which is pursued by the State Department, with our Foreign Office tagging along behind, has achieved nothing constructive and is not achieving and is not likely to achieve anything constructive? Therefore, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government rethought the matter, even if Washington is too fossilised to do so?
§ Mr. RifkindAnyone who believes that there has been no change in the right direction in South Africa in recent years simply refuses to look facts in the face. There have been changes, they are to be welcomed, and that is important.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)The hon. Gentleman is an apologist for the South African regime.
§ Mr. RifkindNo.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that South Africa today is exactly the same as South Africa 20 years ago, he is simply showing his ignorance of that subject. If he is suggesting that there has not yet been sufficient reform in South Africa to guarantee that the aspirations of all the people there will be satisfied, I, and I think the House, would agree.
§ Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant)Nothing is easier, especially at the moment, than to throw the whole lexicon of political abuse at South Africa, and Labour Members are particularly adept at so doing. Rather than now, in breach of the most fundamental treaty of the United Nations, attempting to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa, which hon. Members on both sides of the House 23 may think justifiable, would we not be more likely to achieve a constructive and positive influence by offering help rather than criticism?
§ Mr. RifkindWe must offer help, but the best help that one can give to South Africa is to make frank criticism when that criticism is justified. We would not be doing a good service to South Africa or its long-term interests by ignoring the abhorrence that we all feel at recent events.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)As the Minister has already said several times that he regards these events as abhorrent, as I think we all do, and as he has also said that there is a need for fundamental reform rather than simply dealing with details, what exactly does he think that the Government should do to contribute to that, either by ourselves or in conjunction with our European partners?
§ Mr. RifkindWe have made it clear many times to the South African Government that if they wish to be treated as a respectable and acceptable member of the international community, the western civilised standards to which they say they are committed must be translated into practice in the way that they deal with all their citizens, black or white.
§ Mr. Mark Carlisle (Warrington, South)Although I, too, like my hon. Friend the Minister, totally abhor what has happened in South Africa, I accept too that there has been some movement there in recent years. But will my hon. Friend continue to point out to the South African Government that they have no hope of being accepted by the international community unless they make major changes in their policy towards apartheid?
§ Mr. RifkindWe have made it clear to the South African Government that if there is modest reform in South Africa, we shall give it a modest welcome, but that if they want a more sustained and enthusiastic welcome for their policies, their reforms must be that much more fundamental and far-reaching.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Does the Minister not recognise that the killings in South Africa are simply the most recent manifestation of the naked abuse of racialist power? Does he not accept that it throws those so-called reforms totally into question and shows quite clearly that they are nothing more than a cynical, callous charade? Is it not time that he took stock of the situation? The Government have helped, assisted and defended the South African Government for far too long, and it is time that they took some action and applied economic sanctions.
§ Mr. RifkindThis Government do not defend the South African Government. If the South African Government carry out policies which we consider to be appropriate, we welcome them, but, if they do not, we condemn them. We have had no hesitation in making our views on such matters very clear. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward a policy of economic sanctions or embargoes, he should at least take into account the opinion of black South Africans, which, on all the evidence that we have, is still overwhelmingly against such a policy.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)So that our condemnation of these atrocities in South Africa is not 24 regarded as in any way hypocritical, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government equally fiercely condemn the massacre of civilians in Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces and the religious discrimination shown by the Israelis towards Shi'ite Moslems?
§ Mr. RifkindThe Government condemn the abuse of human rights wherever it may take place.
§ Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)Is the Minister aware that we import coal from South Africa? After the latest set of shootings, is there not South African blood on every nugget of coal that we import? Should not the Minister tell the Secretary of State for Energy to end those imports until world pressure and other pressures have got rid of apartheid in South Africa?
§ Mr. RifkindWe have imported coal from the Soviet Union, and I do not recollect the hon. Gentleman calling on us to cease that trade.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a private notice question, an extension of Question Time, and we must move on.
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all respect, may I point out that this issue in this House at this time is a matter of concern not only for us in Britain, but throughout the world? The House has not yet had an opportunity to express its total abhorrence, and to state that it regards the events of the past 48 hours as an obscenity. In addition, if the Government do not have an opportunity to say that they are as firm as the Opposition are on this issue, the wrong message may well go out from this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have to have regard to all right hon. and hon. Members. This is an extension of Question Time. There is a statement to follow, and 27 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the final day of the Budget debate. It would be unfair to allow questions on this issue to go on until everyone has been called.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Further to that point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. CorbynWill you not accept, Mr. Speaker, that as this country is a major investor in South Africa and has major trading links with it, what is said in the House is important to the tragedy going on in South Africa, as blacks are murdered by the apartheid regime?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend the debate. [Interruption.] Order. There will be other opportunities to discuss this issue, and I should have thought that there was a good opportunity to do so tomorrow on the motion on the Easter Adjournment.
§ Mr. BuchanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is an abuse, because it reduces the amount of time available to other hon. Members who want to speak. However, I must hear him.
§ Mr. BuchanI wish only to pursue the one point you made, Mr. Speaker, when you said that there was an opportunity to debate the issue tomorrow. What opportunity is that?
§ Mr. SpeakerTomorrow there will be a debate on the Easter Adjournment motion. That is a wide subject and all sorts of matters may be raised. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that he could make the point that the House should not adjourn for Easter until this issue has been discussed.