Southern Africa: Commonwealth Committee Meeting (Hansard, 15 July 1985)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, our representative at the emergency meeting on 24th June joined the others present in strongly condemning the South African attack against Botswana and supporting the Botswana Government. This was reflected in the joint statement issued after the meeting.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is not how the press has reported it and not how people who are interested in affairs in Southern Africa generally see it? Is he further aware that on all these questions involving South Africa, with its record of atrocity, apartheid and invasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made statements which any civilised person could support in full? Why, then, did we let down the particular committee investigating these things when we did not support it at the special meeting that was called?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the United Kingdom spoke early in the meeting in firm support of Botswana's statement to the committee. This is reflected in the joint statement which followed the meeting. There was no question of the United Kingdom not supporting the other members of the Commonwealth.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in view of the serious developments in Namibia, can the noble Lord say what is the purpose of the meeting of the contact group which is shortly to be held here in London and what policies Her Majesty's Government will be placing before that group? In view of the Government's known criticism of the action of South Africa in relation to Namibia and elsewhere as being in contravention of the United Nations Resolution 435, can the noble Lord say precisely what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of South Africa on this serious matter?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the meeting to which the noble Lord refers is a routine meeting being held at official rather than ministerial level. It will review the present situation as far Namibia is concerned, and hopefully chart the way forward. I do not want the noble Lord to imagine that some great new insight will emerge from that meeting, because he will appreciate the difficulties that have emerged in the past and the disappointing lack of progress that there has been in this area thus far. As regards our general stance towards this issue, the noble Lord will be aware that we have deplored the violence that has occurred in Southern Africa, from whatever source it came.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, may I ask the Minister seriously whether the Government would reconsider their attitude towards South Africa in view of the decision taken by both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the American Congress and also in view of the fact that in another place a Bill has passed its First Reading for consideration of sanctions? Have the Government any policy which can prevent South Africa from continuing its policy, which has gone on for years and years without any serious attempt at changing it?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the result of the sort of policy the noble Lord has in mind of course would be to isolate South Africa not only from commerce and trade, which I think lies at the heart of what the noble Lord proposes, but also from the influence that we believe we can bring to bear in seeking to persuade her to modify her actions and indeed to move forward so far as the Namibian matter is concerned. It is for that reason that we do not believe that sanctions would serve any useful purpose.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Lord and his noble colleague Lady Young have shown great stamina in constantly telling us what representations they have made, what dialogue they have had, and what criticisms they have made. In view of the end product of all these words, can the noble Lord now tell us whether they have any action in mind in order to change the situation, particularly between South Africa and Namibia?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the truth is that the scope for action, as the noble Lord describes it, is somewhat limited: South Africa is after all an independent, sovereign nation. The way forward, we believe, is by way of persuasive arrangements. We have been involved in that way for a number of years. I agree that the progress has not been significant and we regret that very much, but we are not persuaded that an alternative course would yield any better results.

Lord Oram
My Lords, when the Minister says that the British attitude at that committee meeting was reflected in the statement issued afterwards, does that include agreement by the British delegation with the opinion that full and adequate compensation should be paid by South Africa to Botswana for the damage to life and property? May I ask the Minister what action the Government have taken to ensure that that compensation is being paid?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, yes, we did agree with that part of the statement, and indeed with all of the statement that was issued after that meeting, and we have made our views on this matter very clear to the South African Government.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further and tell the House what proposals Her Majesty's Government will have for the Commonwealth leaders' conference in Nassau in October? Will the question of Namibia be on the agenda and will the Government be prepared to subscribe to economic sanctions if the other Commonwealth leaders agree to do so?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, Namibia is not really a Commonwealth matter; it is of course a United Nations matter, as the noble Lord will appreciate. It is the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 435 to which the noble Lord referred earlier, which we believe is the key to success in that area. We shall be seeking to persuade South Africa of that view. I am not sure that is specifically a matter for the Commonwealth meeting in Nassau later this year. As to sanctions, I believe we have made our view clear on that matter. We do not think that they would achieve the result that is desired.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that, with regard to Southern Africa and South Africa, many of the British Commonwealth countries at this special meeting voiced support for President Reagan? The President has warned South Africa that he will be compelled to seek sanctions if they do not accede to some of the resolutions of the United Nations. When that becomes a reality, can the noble Minister say whether this Government will or will not support the United States Administration?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to answer what is a purely hypothetical question. Our present position is that we do not believe sanctions would have the effect which the noble Lord desires. I would ask him to reflect on all the occasions in history when sanctions have been applied and have proved to be useless.