§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in the light of the setting up of a multiracial Government in Rhodesia and the forthcoming free elections there, they intend to take action at the United Nations to secure the withdrawal of sanctions against Rhodesia.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that present circumstances in Rhodesia warrant an approach to the United Nations Security Council to bring about the lifting of sanctions against that country.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, does the noble Lord recall that three months ago, on 20th April, he appeared to accept that the time had very nearly been reached for action of this kind? In view of the fact that there is now in Salisbury a régime which appears to accept the Five Principles, can the noble Lord say what justification there is for continuing measures which, so long as 1586 they continue, must tend to the impoverishment of all classes and of all races in Rhodesia?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the words I used, I suggest, were more a hope than a prophecy. But I repeat that I am reasonably hopeful that the time is approaching when we can get everybody concerned to an all-Party conference. The justification for continuing with sanctions, which, after all, are mankind's tentative suggestion as a substitute for physical force in the settlement of disputes, is that if we attempted to lift sanctions before there was clear evidence of a transition to an impartial transitional Government acceptable to all, or before free and fair elections had been held which were credible and had been the means of setting up a majority Government, then international opinion, and in particular African opinion, would undergo a dramatic change of attitude to the attempts now being made, with some hopes of success, for a peaceful settlement of this dispute.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, while appreciating that the precise timing of measures of this kind in this immensely delicate situation is plainly something to which the Government must pay close attention, may I ask whether they will, on the other hand, make it clear that they are not saying—as an expression used by the noble Lord might have suggested—that they are giving a veto to any section, inside or outside Rhodesia, on the raising of sanctions by this country? Will he also be prepared to make it clear to our friends in Africa and elsewhere that, as Rhodesia is still in law a British colony, this is primarily a British responsibility?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSI entirely agree, my Lords. It is in law a British dependency, whether one looks at the 1923 Constitution or at the later version, and it is our responsibility. We have, however, joined others in the international authority, not least our partners and allies in Europe and in NATO, to try to settle this equitably on the basis that I have very often described from this Box. But I appreciate the tone and content of what the noble Lord has said. No one wishes to retain sanctions, or indeed the present situation, for one day longer than is necessary. The definition of "necessary" 1587 that I commend to your Lordships' House is: necessary, until and unless international opinion—I again stress African opinion; we have many friends in Africa—is satisfied that progress to a peaceful and lasting settlement, and a fair one, has been begun.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the official Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs is reported only this week on his return from Rhodesia to have declared:
It would be quite wrong now for the Conservative Party to press for sanctions to be left off".Is it not a fact that Governments of both Parties have imposed sanctions on Rhodesia until the Five Principles have been fulfilled, none of which has yet been satisfied?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am aware of what the official spokesman of the Opposition in another place had to say about this question after his return from a visit to Rhodesia, and I admire and appreciate his conservatism, at least in this respect.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to correct a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, who said that sanctions have been imposed by both Governments. The Conservative Government followed an international law obligation that was imposed on this country because of a decision by the Security Council. I want to put this right for the record.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness has corrected or amplified the knowledge of my noble friend about the attitude of the official Opposition far better than I could. I join with her in agreeing that, with the best of motives, this country has made every effort to apply sanctions as an alternative to physical force. It is something that we should all be proud of. Instead of denigrating the function of sanctions, we should try to improve this concept as an instrument of international policy.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, is not this a somewhat sterile 1588 suggestion? Sanctions serve Russian policy, assist their friends and injure their enemies. Why in the world should Russia agree to sanctions being removed? Taking this to the United Nations made it cease to be our decision. It is Russia's decision, and that is what we have to realise.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I cannot compare with my noble friend on definitions of sterility, but may I suggest to him that he might look at the whole concept of psychological and economic sanctions as the beginning of an alternative to methods which in the past have bedevilled the world in international disputes and which, in the context of the nuclear age, might well end it.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, contrary to what his noble friend said, the Conservative Party have made it clear that they will not vote for the renewal of sanctions in November? Is he further aware that international reluctance to remove sanctions is based upon the British Government's reluctance to give a lead? Why cannot the Government break the deadlock so that we can start getting somewhere, in order to bring to an end the risk of this great African debacle so far as Rhodesia is concerned?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the attitude of the noble Lord and that side of the House to the proposal for the renewal of sanctions, if it is then found to be necessary to move the order, is entirely their own responsibility. I have no comment to make on what they may decide in the context of that time. As to the question of Britain giving a lead, I hope I am not being asked to impress upon my right honourable friends courses which, I repeat, might well create reactions in the international world, particularly in Africa, which would render the delicacy and danger of the situation 10 times more than it is now.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, has the Minister noted that yesterday the Organisation for African Unity, representing African countries, endorsed the proposal that a solution must be reached via an all-Party conference?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that is so. I repeat once more that the Patriotic Front, the Organisation for African Unity, and with certain reservations—I could say more—the Salisbury régime appear to be in favour of a round table conference. The Anglo-American mission, the Graham-Low mission, is working on that. We must all hope that something comes out of this perceptible, if small movement towards consensus during the present week and the next few weeks.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEMy Lords, may I address this question to the Leader of the House. I apologise to the House for not having been here at the very beginning, but almost every day, I think, during the last 10 days we have had Questions about Rhodesia in which opinions have been repeatedly expressed—opinions no doubt sincerely held on both sides. I am wondering if the Leader of the House could consider whether the definition of "sterility" does not include a constant interplay of question and answer rather than a debate, if a debate is thought to be necessary by the House.
§ The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord has said. We shall discuss the matter through the usual channels.