HL Deb 22 October 1991 vol 531 cc1416-7

2.47 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:

In the light of admissions made by the South African President and Foreign Minister, whether they have protested against South Africa's interference in the Namibian elections.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, no.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is an abominable breach of international treaty practice for one country—in this case, South Africa—after agreeing to fair and free elections in Namibia to then give funds to parties in that election who were opposing the majority party; that is, SWAPO? Does he also agree that as this has now been publicly admitted by the President and Foreign Minister of South Africa it is not surprising that members of the African National Congress are at least suspicious of the actions of the South African Government in any impending elections within South Africa itself?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we have always made clear that the South African Government should cease unwarranted interference in the affairs of its neighbours.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, in view of the anxieties regarding a peace process and the scandal that the Inkathagate event brought out, will the Minister say whether this was discussed at the Commonwealth conference? Will he also say whether the Commonwealth Secretary will be raising those questions when he visits South Africa later this month?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, those are separate questions from that on the Order Paper. With regard to the Question, I can say that we have noted with pleasure the measured response of the Namibian Government to this problem.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl is fully aware of the British involvement in the long negotiations leading up to the independence of Namibia. If he now says that the British Government have always deplored any interference by the South African Government in the affairs of its neighbours, why do they not at least protest against the open interference in the election that led to the independence of Namibia—the open funding of anti-SWAPO parties?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I have answered that question.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, the noble Earl has not answered that question. I am asking why—not whether—if the British Government have opposed interference by the South African Government in the affairs of its neighbours they have not protested when that interference has become public news through the lips of the leaders of South Africa?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is the same question that the noble Lord put to me in his previous supplementary question and the same as his first supplementary question, which I have answered.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the whole House is glad to see the better relations that are developing between our country and other Commonwealth countries and South Africa. Added to that is the success of the Harare Conference. Therefore, is it not unfortunate, taking all that into account, that the charges of interference by South Africa in the affairs of neighbouring countries should militate against the progress that is being made? Does the Minister agree that there is clear, indefensible evidence of interference? In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask Her Majesty's Government to make clear representations to the South African Government. Will the noble Earl convey that to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as regards our relationships with Commonwealth countries, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will have been pleased to read of the outstanding success of Her Majesty the Queen's state visit to Namibia. We do, and shall continue to, encourage South Africa to maintain progress towards achieving normal relationships with its neighbours. We believe that President de Klerk's action to restore confidence is a step forward.