RHODESIA (Hansard, 17 January 1979)

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)
My Lords, I have just heard 971 that the Statement on Rhodesia has been cleared. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement.
"The Government are releasing today the report of my right honourable friend the Member for Anglesey who visited Africa before Christmas for private talks with all concerned in the Rhodesia dispute in order to advise me, in the light of his discussions, whether the right climate existed for an All-Party Conference on Rhodesia. I had told the House on 7th November that I would be prepared to convene such a meeting if the conditions seemed right.
"My right honourable friend left for Africa on 27th November. Accompanied by President Carter's representative, Ambassador Low, he visited Rhodesia and seven other African countries in the course of his mission, returning to this country on 14th December. He had consultations with the front-line Presidents, the leaders of the Patriotic Front and the members of the Executive Council in Salisbury. He met representatives of other political groups and organisations in Rhodesia. He also had talks with Mr. R. F. Botha, Foreign Minister of South Africa, and General Obasanjo, Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.
"My right honourable friend gave me a full account of his findings on his return to London. I am most grateful for the way in which he has carried out this task, and I have given the most careful consideration to his conclusions. I have also discussed them with President Carter. My right honourable friend's principal conclusion, which he reached with great regret, was that no good purpose would be served by convening a meeting of the parties to the conflict in the immediate future, since there would be virtually no likelihood of a successful outcome. I have decided that I must accept this advice.
972 "My right honourable friend's discussions with the Patriotic Front and with the Executive Council in Salisbury made it clear that the positions of the parties on the key issues are very far apart and that there is at present no possibility of their moving sufficiently close to each other in the course of a negotiation to allow hope that agreement might be reached. My right honourable friend concluded that a conference called now would end in failure, and that this would inhibit any new attempt to promote a settlement for a period of several months at least. He nevertheless recommended that I should be ready to call a conference at once if developments should indicate a better prospect of success than would be the case today. I accept this advice also.
"We shall not give up our attempts to achieve a peaceful solution. President Carter and I reaffirmed our commitment at Guadeloupe to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and bring the human suffering there to an end. We were in full agreement that the Anglo/ American proposals remain the best basis for a peaceful solution. We will continue to work closely together to improve the prospects for a successful negotiation and to take advantage of any opportunity to promote a peaceful solution to the present conflict."

§ Lord CARRINGTON
My Lords, we are grateful for the Statement made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but it will not come as any great surprise because it has been widely known for some time that the Government had decided not to call a conference. I do not think that anybody could contradict the advice given to the Government by Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, because he has had the opportunity of seeing all the principal people concerned in this matter and we, on this side, have not had that advantage. I have no doubt that the advice he has given the Government is sound. At the moment there may very well not be the prospect of a successful outcome to a conference. But I really do 973 not think that one can just leave it there or leave it in the way that the Statement leaves it. Time is getting on and the situation in Rhodesia is becoming worse and worse. I do not think that one can leave the position as the Statement leaves it—in effect just hoping for the best.
When we proposed the possibility of a Camp David conference and the Prime Minister accepted and welcomed that suggestion—the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, looks surprised, but that is exactly what happened in another place—one of the other proposals which we also made was not that there should be a conference just like that, but that there should be, as a preliminary, a contact group on the basis of the Western contact group which was formed during the discussions on the Namibian situation. That has not resolved itself, but at any rate it looks a great deal more hopeful. One of the reasons it looks hopeful is that the contact group from the Security Council, before there was ever any kind of decision, narrowed the differences between the parties. Would it not at any rate be possible for there to be a contact group of the new Security Council—it has now changed in composition—which might seek to narrow the differences which Mr. Cledwyn Hughes has seen and noticed during his visit?
That is only one suggestion. However, I must ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this Statement means that the Government are going to do nothing. As the conference is not considered to be a useful suggestion, are they going to see nothing done and just watch the situation deteriorate daily?

§ Lord GLADWYN
My Lords, we, on these Benches, should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this highly depressing, though no doubt entirely realistic, Statement. Is it not pretty clear that unfortunately no progress is likely to be made until the referendum and the ensuing elections are over? If we are to be optimistic at all, it may be that when that is over the situation will so develop that Salisbury will be ready to accept the Anglo-American plan, or some modified version of it, without reserve. If they do, no doubt we could consider provisional 974 recognition and do our best to get the Patriotic Front to come in on the same basis. In the meantime—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that "in the meantime" is important—we must do something. I agree that perhaps something on the lines he has suggested would be possible to organise; alternatively, possibly there could be some continuing presence in Salisbury or elsewhere of two or three people who at least would be able to monitor events and keep us up to date. In itself, that might be a good thing.
In conclusion, may I take it that whatever policy we pursue in regard to Rhodesia will also be followed, we hope, by the Council of Ministers of the European Community? It would surely be deplorable if at a certain moment one or other Members of the Community were to recognise the provisional regime and we did not. That is something which we must surely avoid at all costs.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I still think that he must appreciate that this is a report from my right honourable friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes explaining why he believes that at this stage it would be fruitless to have a conference. However, that is not to say that we should just stay put and do nothing. On the contrary, inevitably there must still be a desire to have a conference and a desire to reaffirm the Anglo-American proposals. There will be no sitting back here. In fact, we shall have to see how we can create the conditions in which we could achieve a successful conference. To hold a conference which would not be fruitful would be disastrous. Therefore, I agree that we must keep up the political initiative, and we must seek to do so in conjunction with the United States of America. So I hope that no one will think that we are now sitting down, just waiting for something to turn up. There will be continuous political initiatives. I believe that that was the main point raised both by the Leader of the Opposition and also by the Leader of the Liberal Party.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I join with the noble Lords, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal 975 Party, in thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. We must accept the advice of Mr. Cledwyn Hughes. I do not know anyone who would be more objective, impartial and wise in considering the situation than him. I have just returned from East Africa where I had the opportunity to meet the Presidents of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania and to have long discussions about Zimbabwe with the Presidents, Kenneth Kaunda and Julius Nyerere. I also had a long discussion with Joshua Nkomo and with a very important person, whose name I must not mention, who had come from Zimbabwe because he has returned there. Those discussions have greatly changed my views about the situation in Zimbabwe. I shall not state them until I have been able to meet the Foreign Secretary. However, I very much hope that we may have an early debate upon this issue because I believe that we have now reached a situation in which constructive participation can take place.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is right about constructive participation. I appreciate that he knows Africa well, and he has reported to the House that he has met African leaders. We shall still press forward the concepts which are enshrined in the Anglo-American proposals, which are produced as a White Paper, and shall continue to do so. I should not wish to say anything which may exacerbate feelings on this matter. I think that we are going through a difficult period.

§ Lord TRANMIRE
My Lords, can the noble Lord say what steps Her Majesty's Government will take during this interregnum to de-escalate the fighting in Central Africa and in particular to ensure that the elections to the transitional Government go forward in peace in the spring?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, we have always pressed for the fighting to cease. We believe that it is a terrible tragedy that we should have this, and if there are to be proper elections, they must be held in conditions of peace. That is the policy of the Government, and it has always been so.

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, does my noble friend not realise that nothing is to be gained by romantic prognostications? We must face the facts. One outstanding fact is that because Mr. Cledwyn Hughes has failed to meet with success and is blameless in the matter—for there must be few people who expected him to succeed knowing the circumstances and the people with whom he had to deal—a question has been posed today that the Government must answer and, if I may say so, which the Opposition must answer, for there are responsible people in the Opposition. As a result of this regrettable and almost melancholy Statement of non-success, will Rhodesia be left to its fate and to its ultimate destruction? Will that be the position? Has not the time come when we must forget the past and who is to blame, whether it be Mr. Smith or the National Front of Rhodesia? Is it not time to remind ourselves that a large number of people who came from the United Kingdom still reside in Rhodesia? We must recognise the facts. Are they to be sacrificed? Is no action at all to be taken? Reference has been made to referring the matter to the Security Council. We do not expect much from the Security Council, but let us try something. My noble friend spoke about retaining the initiative. I beg to him tell us exactly what he means by that.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, my noble friend referred first to romantic prognostications. I am not as romantic as he is. All I can say is that the reality is that the advice given by a very distinguished ex-Minister and a Member of the Privy Council who is respected by all, is that in the present situation a conference would not succeed. However, as I have told the House, in this difficult situation we must still keep up the initiative and try to achieve a conference in which the Anglo-American proposals can be discussed. That will not be easy. I accept that there is a great danger here. I also recognise that many of the people of Rhodesia came from this country. We want peace and a peaceful settlement. I cannot say to my noble friend that I can now announce a specific policy which will create a new situation in Rhodesia. It is an extremely difficult situation. As I have said, we must continue the initiative because we want a conference and we 977 want the proposals of the United States and of this country discussed in a peaceful situation.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, can the noble Lord say in what fundamental way the Anglo-American proposals differ from those which the transitional Government in Salisbury is trying to carry out and has announced? If, as I think, there are no fundamental differences, to give the impression of doing nothing, as his noble friend has just said, can only encourage those who think that by doing nothing we are backing away from what we believe. That can only escalate the possibility of fighting and death, such as has been mentioned by my noble friend.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, we do not shrink from our proposals. We want to back those proposals which were discussed in this House and the other place too. We believe that these proposals form the basis of what could be a successful conference and discussion, and a move towards a situation in Rhodesia when people can again live in peace.

§ Lord HATCH of LUSBY
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the basic difference between the plan of the transitional Government and the Anglo-American plan is that, whereas the transitional Government has issued a constitution allowing 5 per cent. of the population to have 28 per cent. of the members of Parliament and 25 per cent. of a new Government, the Anglo-American plan was designed to provide for genuine one man, one vote and a full democratic system electing a democratic government?

§ Lord PEART
Yes, my Lords, I accept that. That is our position. That is the policy of the Government.

§ The Marquess of SALISBURY
My Lords, can the noble Lord say what consideration has been given to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, in the sanctions debate last November that a time limit should be put on the present system of trying to find a solution? He suggested four to five months then, if I am not misquoting him, and proposed that if no progress was made with the Patriotic 978 Front other steps should be taken by Her Majesty's Government.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I am aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Home, who is a former Foreign Secretary, and I have noted them carefully. There may be a situation in which we need to have a time limit, but we do not accept that at this moment. We adhere to the Anglo-American proposals, and we believe that the initiative should still come from us in that respect.

§ Lord KINNAIRD
My Lords, may I, in view of the present circumstances, ask the noble Lord what state we have to reach before the Government do consider a time limit?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I could not answer that: I think one should put that question to those who believe that there should be a time limit. We have not accepted that. We believe that we should still press ahead with our proposals.

§ Lord KINNAIRD
My Lords, I asked how far we should have to go before the Government can move. Mr. Smith puts up suggestions to the Government and the Foreign Minister turns them down; Lord Home puts up suggestions and the Government do not listen. All the Government say is that they must get to a certain pitch before they will consider it, but what pitch do they want to get to?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I do not think that one should say that the Government would not listen to proposals of that kind. We have considered every speech that there has been in these debates. The points of view that have been raised are taken note of closely by the Government Ministers. I can assure the noble Lord that he is very unfair on this. In any case, I cannot give a date, or anything like that, otherwise I should be indulging in hypothesis.

§ Lord CARRINGTON
My Lords, the noble Lord has repeatedly said in answer to questions from both sides of the House that the Government must retain the initiative. What initiative? This is what we want to know. All that has happened is that the Government in this Statement have said they are not going to have a 979 conference, they are just hoping for the best. What is their policy?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, they have not said that. They have said that the Government still believe the best hope of success is to have a successful conference based on our policy, and we will continue to press this. If the noble Lord, who has a lot of experience, can tell me something different, I will take note of it, but I believe that it is right that we must keep the initiative going.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, is not the reality of this situation that we have two sets of forces busy building up armies ready for invasion? The time will come when these two leaders will think the time is ripe for invasion. Surely that must be recognised. Surely time is not on the side of the Government. They have no time to waste on this, and they must find an initiative as a matter of urgency.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I accept that we must keep up the initiative. We recognise that. What other proposals are there now? The Anglo-American proposals are the best aims that we can achieve, and I am certain that if we keep it up we can probably get a successful conference. We must aim for that. Other factors on defence have been mentioned, and these are other matters of which the Government are well aware.

§ Lord WIGG
My Lords, is it not a fact that Mr. Smith himself in a recent speech at Umtali said that a military situation has now got to be faced in which the war could not be won? That is what he means. If it cannot be won by military force there is only one thing left open to him, and that is to talk. He will not talk, and he is not in a position to fight, so therefore there is an inevitability about this. Either Britain uses troops, which is out of the question, or we accept that we have a very limited field of action, and that is in conjunction with our American friends. That is the only course that can be pursued, and the Government are quite right not to be led into a definition here that can only lead to false promises. There is nothing that can be done, and the Opposition know perfectly well that Mr. Smith entered into a course of action 980 and has lost, and the only thing he can do now is to talk.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend has said. I think the Opposition should be very careful in what they say in criticism of what I have said already. We have an important debate now. I shall certainly take note very carefully of some of the points that have been made and I shall, I hope, write.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more helpful than that? My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition put forward a concrete suggestion about a contact group. Cannot the noble Lord at least reply to that?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I am very sorry that I did not reply to that. I think it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Looking at it now immediately I think that that could be a very positive suggestion in the best sense, and I shall certainly inform the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. That will be taken up. That is a very positive suggestion.