Southern Africa: London Conference (Hansard, 12 May 1988)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, the United States convened the talks to which the noble Lord refers. In addition to the US, South Africa and an Angolan delegation, which included Cuban representatives, took part. In accordance with our policy of support for negotiations on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, and on implementing the UN plan for Namibian independence, we welcomed the convening of the talks in London and provided some assistance on administrative matters. At the end of the talks, the 1221 participants issued a joint statement announcing that progress had been made and that there would be a further meeting soon.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government took a lead in this issue rather than following the lead of the United States, particularly because Her Majesty's Government originally passed over to South Africa the mandate for what was then South-West Africa and is now Namibia? Her Majesty's Government are also a member of the United Nations contact group. Secondly, will the noble Lord assure the House that in any negotiations Her Majesty's Government will be steadfast in refusing any deal which does not include the full implementation of Resolution 435 regarding the independence of Namibia?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked in his second question. On the first point, which arises from the noble Lord's second question, our position is clear. The United Kingdom remains committed to UNSCR 435 for free and fair elections.
The noble Lord asks whether the United Kingdom should become more closely involved. It is fair to say that these talks were a valuable step in trying to achieve peace for Angola and independence for Namibia. It was agreed at the talks that there would be follow-up talks and my understanding is that that is being put into effect.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we welcome what the noble Lord has said about Her Majesty's Government's commitment to Security Council Resolution 435. Perhaps he will go a step further and say to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to linkage, about which there has been a good deal of discussion over the past few years.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we set no precondition for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 but we realise that the South Africans are unlikely to co-operate while the Cubans remain in Angola. Therefore, as a practical matter we support the approach of the United States on this.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept the pleasure that many of us feel at seeing him in good health?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. The only trouble is that there are some people who are stretched out flat.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Lord has given an assurance to the House on Her Majesty's Government's support for Security Council Resolution 435 and we all welcome that. However, is he not aware that there are suspicions that the United States is concerned only about the removal of Cuban troops and might try—and in the view of some observers has already tried—to make a deal for the removal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola without the essential element that that 1222 requires the implementation of Resolution 435 for Namibia?
Perhaps I may repeat my original supplementary question. I did not ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government supported the talks. I suggested that the time had now come when the Government should take the lead rather than leave it to the United States.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord is doing less than justice to the United States talks. I understand that they were businesslike and constructive and that all at the talks stressed their desire for an early settlement with—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's specific point—Cuban troop withdrawal and implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 as the basis for it. I believe that negotiation is the only way to solve the future of Namibia and this has been quite a valuable step forward.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been a good deal of informed press comment by those who know Southern Africa well, indicating that there seems to be no intention on the part of the South African Government to make such a settlement along the lines of the Security Council resolution and that there is a necessity for negotiation to be accompanied by effective economic pressure on the South African Government?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that since the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 there has not been much of consequence to see, although there has been a great deal of work. However, we should bear in mind that these talks were attended by United States, South African, Angolan and Cuban representatives. I believe that they reached a very hopeful agreement.