§ 3.7 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy 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 Masjesty's Government what policy they are pursuing regarding the attempt to link the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola with that of South Africans from Namibia.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)My Lords, the matters now under discussion between the United States, Angolan and South African Governments (including the withdrawal of Cuban troops) are not part of the United Nations' plan for a Namibia settlement. But agreement could clinch implementation of the United Nations' plan and contribute towards greater stability in the region.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, can he clarify the statement which he made during our debate on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday night of this week in which he said, at col. 225:
the crucial question is not whether the so-called linkage exists: of course there is a linkage in Security Council Resolution 435"?Was the noble Lord misreported by the Official Report, because I understood him to have assured me in answering questions earlier that the British Government did not support the concept of a linkage between the withdrawal of South African and Cuban troops?354 Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that there is intense frustration among Africans in Southern Africa at the number of times that the Contact Group has expressed optimism, only to be followed by sabotage from the South African Government? In view of that, will the noble Lord use his offices within the British Government to reassert the British initiative, despite the fact that it appears that the United States has taken over?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out what undoubtedly is a misprint in the record of your Lordships' House. There should have been a negative either in the speech that I gave or else in the record which was made at the column which the noble Lord has repeated in his question, because there is of course no linkage between Resolution 435 of the United Nations Security Council and the removal of Cuban troops. But, having said that, while the five representatives of the United Nations, of whom Britain is one, are not directly involved in the current discussions between the American, Angolan and South African Governments, we and our partners recognise the need to take account of regional security concerns in working out an overall settlement. The Five believe that such a settlement could strengthen peace and security and foster economic development in the region.
§ Lord Thomas of SwynnertonMy Lords, would the noble Minister not agree that it is rather an offence that there should be any Cuban troops in South-West Africa at all?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I repeat that I think that it will be very much for regional security if we can see a removal of Cuban forces from Angola.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to the reports in reputable newspapers that the French Government may be prepared to send forces to Angola to replace Cuban forces? Some of the reports have indicated that the Portuguese might be prepared to do that as well, although that is in a slightly more sensitive category. As a member of the Western Contact Group, this offer by France could be enormously important in helping to find a long-term solution to the problem and also to force South Africa into a position to make a final decision and to show the world what she is about. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any validity in those reports?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I do not think that there is any immediate prospect of such an arrangement and I believe that the French Government have themselves made clear now that they have no intention of taking such action. But I am sure that those directly involved in the negotiations would be ready to consider anything which might contribute to a solution.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are certainly Members of your Lordships' House who will hear with alarm and regret his statement that there is no linkage between the withdrawal of Cuban troops and the withdrawal of South African troops? Is he not perfectly aware that, if 355 the South African troops withdraw while the Cubans are next door, the Cubans will move in and take over and so will their masters the Russians? Which side are we on in South Africa?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, if the noble Lord has heard that with alarm and regret, the noble Lord must have suffering from alarm and regret for about the last four years, because United Nations' Security Council Resolution 435 has never had any linkage on this subject within it. But, having said that, I agree with the noble Lord that, to use one's common sense, one must realise that it will help regional security and be for the good order of Southern Africa if we can see Cuban troops beginning to depart from Angola.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in so far as this country is the head of a great multi-Commonwealth, we ought to continue to make transparently clear our abhorrence of the philosophy—the evil philosophy—of apartheid which is practised in South Africa, and that we have a duty, indeed, a responsibility, continually to make that transparently clear in our almost unique role as the head of a great multi-Commonwealth?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the Government would in no way quarrel with what the noble Lord says, but it is not part of the Namibia negotiations or solution.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer to me alarmed me even more? Is the implication that the decisions on Her Majesty's foreign policy are taken at the United Nations?—I profoundly hope that that is not so.
§ Lord BelsteadNo, my Lords, but, as one of the Contact Group of Five, who were, of course, the permanent members of the Security Council when the resolution was passed, the Government are loyally trying to put into effect a Security Council resolution which we believe will be for the good order of Southern Africa. I repeat that within that Security Council resolution there is no linkage on this subject. But I repeat again, in case the noble Lord has not taken the point on board, that if the noble Lord and the Government use our common sense, which I am sure we can, we would both be at one in believing that the removal of Cuban troops is desirable.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this problem can be solved without linkage to any treatment of independence to Namibia? Is it not the case that the Angolan Government have said that the Cuban troops would be withdrawn from Angola if the South African troops were withdrawn from Namibia and did not invade Angola? Could not an agreement on those lines be reached without specifically linking it with the treaty of independence?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the Angolans have made clear their willingness to consider withdrawing Cuban forces once a Namibia settlement is achieved and external threats to their security are ended. It is, therefore, a chicken-and-egg situation. These discussions are now going on between the United States and the Angolan and the South African Governments to see whether all sides can agree on this particularly difficult aspect of the problem.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, my Question concerned Namibia. Why is it that members of the Contact Group—the noble Lord is one of the leading representatives of the Government, which are a member of the Contact Group—are always concentrating on the withdrawal of Cuban troops? Why is there not much more concern for the withdrawal of South African troops both from Angola and from Namibia? May I ask him to answer the second part of my question: What is his reaction to be to the growing frustration in Southern Africa? Will he first pledge the Government—as he has done before—that the question of Cuban troops in Angola is a matter for Angolan sovereignty alone, not connnected with the question of Namibia? Will he also pledge the Government to put their whole weight behind Resolution 435 for the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord. Lord Hatch, would be satisfied if Resolution 435 could be carried fully into effect. May I remind the noble Lord that a very great deal of progress has been made on that by the Contact Group of Five, of whom Britain is one, and that we now have only two problems left to overcome. One is to agree on the electoral system for Namibia in the future, and the other on the composition, deployment and practical arrangements for the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. But, in order to reach that finishing tape, to be politically real about this there must undoubtedly be some agreement about the removal of Cuban troops even though that removal is not linked to Resolution 435. It is those difficult discussions which are also going on at the same time.
§ Lord GlenkinglasMy Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House are not particularly keen on apartheid, but we detest the system of Russian penetration through the Cuban troops?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords—
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I do not wish to expedite this at all, but we have spent 11 minutes on one Question and if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, were to put his last supplementary question, I think that we should then move on.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I was simply going to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he would answer my question as regards reaffirming his agreement that the question of Cuban troops in Angola is a matter for Angolan sovereignty.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the conclusion of Resolution 435 is one matter; the removal of Cuban troops is another matter. But if the noble Lord will put on his common-sense hat, he will realise that the one affects the other.