HL Deb 11 November 1970 vol 312 cc756-60

3.55 p.m.

Debate resumed.

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, this is a terrifying occasion for me, as it is the first time that I have spoken in this House, and I crave your Lordships' indulgence while I speak on a matter which I think has caused us all concern for some time. Five years have now elapsed since Rhodesia declared its independence. During this time it has been hoped that some sort of settlement would eventually be reached and that Rhodesia would once again enjoy worldwide recognition. However, this has not been the case. Time has passed and nothing has been done: door after door has been closed, with the Governments of Rhodesia and the United Kingdom being no closer to a solution.

In June, 1968, the then Lord Chancellor, in opening the debate on the Southern Rhodesia United Nations Sanctions Order, said: The problem of Rhodesia is essentially a racial problem, because it relates to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which white men and black men are to live together …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/6/68; col. 321.] That is very true, but it is not only so in Rhodesia. The United States, for example, has a population of over 200 million, and of those some 22 million are negroes. Although the American Civil Rights Law of 1964 fully integrated their society, racial discrimination, or racialism as it is called to-day, still exists. However, there are negro militants who wage an almost continual war with local authorities. They are in constant conflict with the police, and there have been many casualties on both sides. In addition, there have been problems in America with white militant groups causing trouble. These clashes have no doubt caused the American Administration a considerable amount of concern; so much so that some people have suggested that the only logical solution would be to turn certain of the more densely black populated States into an independent black domain: a sort of apartheid, I suppose…

That is not only the case in America. One could name several countries where racial discrimination is practised and there is an inability of white and black people to live together. It is very difficult for the two races to live together in complete harmony. The very commendable ideas which emit from London, Washington and the United Nations are not necessarily practical in countries for which they are designed.

In the case of Rhodesia, I think we should all like to see a return to normality, but I feel that this cannot be achieved under existing conditions. If sanctions were dropped, I have no hesitation in saying that a forceful Opposition based on internal factions would arise in the region. However, so long as sanctions are maintained no practical solution to the problem can be envisaged. Unfortunately, it is the fact that sanctions so far have hit the African population the hardest. It should be remembered that the lower classes are always the first to suffer. African development in the field of agriculture has not advanced as quickly as it should have done; and African education has suffered. In debating the question of Rhodesia, it is these things—the people who are hurt, and the slowing down of progress—that I would ask your Lordships to have in mind.

3.59 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, it is an easy matter for me to be the first to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. He has dealt with what most of us here would consider to be a particularly controversial subject in a completely non-controversial manner, and that in itself deserves much commendation. Further, he has done what I am afraid many of your Lordships do not often do (and I am as guilty as any in this respect); that is, he has expressed his thoughts clearly, concisely and shortly. He has made an admirable maiden speech, and I am sure that any future speeches he makes will be in a similar vein, and we look forward to them.

We are all agreed on one point in this matter; that is, that we are all equally anxious to see the situation in Rhodesia brought to an end. Where we disagree is on the methods which are most likely to succeed, and on the conditions which would bring it to an end. There is no point in reaching a settlement between Her Majesty's Government and Rhodesia if it does no more than lead to a further exacerbation of the tensions which already exist throughout the whole of Southern Africa. Our interests in this— the interests of this country; the interests of Her Majesty's Government—are, I believe, very simple and clear. We must safeguard our own economic and military position; that must not be put in any greater jeopardy than it is at present and, if possible, that jeopardy must be diminished. I do not believe that anybody will disagree with me when I say that we must also safeguard our own national honour. Our honour demands that, in so far as it is in our power, and even at the sacrifice of some of our own material wellbeing, we must do all that we can to look after all those people in Rhodesia, African and European, for whom we had responsibility and for whom we must still have responsibility. We cannot avoid that responsibility simply by running away from the question. It is there with us; we must live with it, and we must remember that it is a matter of our national honour.

How can we act to reduce the tension that exists at present, and promote, in effect, a wider peace throughout the whole of Southern Africa? That is the problem that faces us. I do not believe that the point of view so ably put forward now and on other occasions by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is going to achieve that aim. We certainly could bring about a settlement with Mr. Smith and his colleagues without any great difficulty. But the great danger is that by so doing we should be putting at risk our own interests and the interests of those for whom we are responsible in Rhodesia and in the much wider area of Southern Africa. In order for a settlement with Rhodesia to be of lasting value, to achieve those objectives that we need for our own national wellbeing and honour, they must have the prospect of being acceptable to other countries also who are directly concerned, and this includes the countries to the South and to the North, the Congo, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique and South Africa. They are all concerned and cannot be left out.

I do not agree with those noble Lords, and others, who have asserted that sanctions have failed. Sanctions have not achieved anything like the most optimistic supporters of them thought they would achieve, or that we all hoped would be achieved. Undoubtedly sanctions have had an effect on the economy of Rhodesia. If we believe what we read in the newspapers and what people who have been there tell us, we know that although material conditions for a minority of people are comfortable, although as I believe we heard to-day on the B.B.C., or perhaps read in one of the newspapers—there are large numbers of swimming pools in the houses of the citizens of Salisbury, and although there are a large number of two-car families (and there are more of them now than before sanctions started), the economy is not advancing as it should. The investments in that country, the infrastructure, are all suffering and there is a grave crisis on foreign exchange. Those are the basic, important matters—far more important than two cars and a swimming pool—and they are due to the success of sanctions. It is only because of that success that Mr. Smith is now prepared to consider further talks. It is only if that pressure is shown to be a permanent one, and an increasing one, that the talks will have any chance of success along the lines which the present Government have laid down, as did the past Government.

It is true—and again I quote the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who I think was quoting his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—that the rift between Britain and Rhodesia is tragic. A rift between Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth would be infinitely more tragic. When we are concentrating on a settlement with Rhodesia—and it is right that we should do this—we must not forget what is at risk with the rest of the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I hope that the Government may succeed in their talks with Rhodesia, that they may bring about a settlement, but I would far rather see no settlement at all than a settlement which runs away from our obligations of honour, and which is of a kind that arouses the enmity, increases the mistrust of those who are our friends and fellow members of the Commonwealth, throughout the whole of Africa.

Not only shall we thereby be putting at risk one of the greatest international assets that we have helped to create, and which we now enjoy, but we shall be fertilising the seeds which already exist of a racial conflict in Southern Africa. That is what the Government must always have in the forefront of their mind in these negotiations. If they put those things first, and they still achieve a settlement, then they will have earned the gratitude of us all. If they achieve a settlement without having put those things first, they will deserve the blame and condemnation of all right-minded people.