Namibia: Government Policy (Hansard, 25 June 1985)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, the new administrative arrangements in Namibia do not alter South Africa's responsibility to bring about internationally recognised independence in accordance with the terms of Security Council Resolution 435. We shall continue to take every opportunity to impress upon the South African Government the need for the early implementation of that resolution.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not realise, after the recent raids into Botswana and the raid on Cabinda, that the words of Her Majesty's Government have no effect whatever on South African policy? That is why I am asking what action the Government intend to take. Can she tell us why last week at the Security Council the British Government abstained from voting on the resolution which warned South Africa of the movement towards economic sanctions? Can she tell the House why only yesterday at the special Commonwealth Committee meeting the British Government stood alone against the whole of the rest of the Commonwealth in action, not words, being taken against these invasions by South Africa of international morality?

§ Baroness Young
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has managed to include about seven questions in his one supplementary question. I shall answer his point about the vote in the Security Council on Security Council Resolution 566, from which we abstained because of our reservation on certain elements of the resolution and because we regretted the failure of the Security Council to agree a consensus text. Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that economic sanctions are not the most effective way of securing a Namibian settlement.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I hope the House will allow me, before I ask a supplementary question, to say how delighted we are to see my noble friend Lord Underhill back looking so well after his illness.

Noble Lords
Hear, hear£

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we appreciate that the Government rightly condemn the action of the South African Government, and also that the Government support Resolution 435. Can the noble Baroness say whether there have been any direct representations from Her Majesty's Government to the Government of South Africa on their action, which can do nothing but create a more difficult situation in Southern Africa and also create an invidious political situation for other members of the Commonwealth, such as Zambia and Zimbabwe, in that part of the world?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, we, too, are very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, back in his place. On the particular point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has raised on the South African raid into Gaberones, we acted swiftly. My right honourable and learned friend summoned the South African ambassador immediately on 14th June and made clear the very serious view we took on this indefensible attack. We strongly condemned this blatant violation of Botswana's sovereignty, and we joined our Community partners in the statement by the Ten on 17th June strongly condemning the South African action.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, is the noble Baroness not continuing to confuse action with words? Do not all her answers show that nothing is being done to combat the behaviour of the South Africans except mere remonstrations? Is it not time we moved on from that, as the United Nations Congress is thinking of doing? If the noble Baroness is not prepared to do anything positive whatsoever, will she not at least advise the leaders of business and industry in this country that, whatever the morality of the situation, they are taking tremendous risks with their shareholders' money in continuing to invest funds in the racist regime of South Africa and in Namibia?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I have made plain in your Lordships' House on many occasions what is Her Majesty's Government's view on the effectiveness of economic sanctions. We do not believe that they would be effective in this case, and we continue to think that we can best make our views known and best influence the South African Government by leaving open the channels of diplomatic communication and other lines of communication.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the noble Baroness briefly adumbrate the premise upon which the decision has been taken that economic sanctions are not worth bothering with?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, we believe that economic sanctions would be counter-productive and would be likely to hurt the blacks in South Africa most and harm the economics of the neighbouring black African states.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, in the Government's view, how long is the present deadlock to go on? Is it not the case that the illegal Government of South 641 Africa has now operated for over a decade? If Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to endorse the policy of sanctions, what do they propose to do to bring effective pressure upon the South African Government? Could they not at least limit investments into South Africa, which are maintaining the apartheid system?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I have made plain Her Majesty's Government's view over sanctions. Perhaps I may add that we do not believe that they would be effective in securing the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435, which is the subject of this Question. Indeed, it is much more likely to bring to an end the possibility of negotiating a peaceful and internationally accepted settlement in Namibia.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it may not be altogether helpful if Members of this House dub particular Governments as illegal? Is it not the case that our own constitution goes back to the revolution of 1688?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I note the point that my noble friend makes on this matter. In fact, so far as the interim administration in Namibia is concerned, we do not recognise it and it has no standing under the United Nations plan.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it not the case that the South African administration in Namibia before the new interim administration was formed was also illegal internationally and has been declared so? The noble Baroness, in answering my first supplementary question, said that the reason that the British Government had abstained at the United Nations was that they did not believe in economic sanctions. Is it not the case that the British Government are now placing themselves in isolation from the rest of the Commonwealth and in isolation from the rest of the Security Council apart from the United States of America? If the British Government do not believe in economic sanctions, what action do they believe in, bearing in mind the fact that words have been used for the past 70 years with results that we can all see today?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, we are quite clear what it is that we wish to achieve in Namibia; that is, the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435. The question is, how to achieve it. We do not believe that imposing sanctions will achieve it.