Michael Brunson, ITN
Prime Minister, you always said very firmly “No sanctions!” You said “No sanctions!” when you arrived here. You have now agreed to at least one, which is the ban on the import of Krugerrands.
Prime Minister
That is a very far cry from a ban on all exports and imports of all goods to South Africa. At the moment, the import of Krugerrands is running at something like half a million pounds every year, so you can see that it does not amount to a great deal; but the Commonwealth felt it was important as a psychological signal.
Michael Brunson, ITN
But you have given way on the principle of sanctions, haven't you?
Prime Minister
Half a million pounds, a half a million pounds a year, compared with what we were faced with: a ban on all imports and exports of all goods to South Africa. Is it not worth that, [end p1] first, to keep the Commonwealth together and, second, most importantly, to get a clause in that Agreement which we have never got before—that when the dialogue starts, it shall be against the background of suspension of violence. I worked jolly hard to get that in, because as you know, I am passionately against violence as a political instrument. That is what we got and it was worth paying a price to get it. It is a very very small price for a very very big prize.
Michael Brunson, ITN
In other words, you are really saying that this document which has been produced, which lists a lot of things which look like sanctions, are not really sanctions at all?
Prime Minister
Which one are you talking about? As you know full well, there is one thing which is a real sanction there and that is the one which is enforceable because it is a United Nations sanction which has been in existence since 1977, which is an agreement not to supply arms to South Africa. That is an enforceable trade sanction. The others: we do not supply computers to the army or security forces in South Africa; we do not supply nuclear materials. We do not in fact sell crude oil from the North Sea.
Look! What we were faced with when we came here was a demand for full mandatory sanctions; a ban on all exports from South Africa; a ban on all imports to South Africa from this country. Compare that with what has happened here. A ban on the import of Krugerrands—not on the sale, we cannot do that— [end p2] on the import of Krugerrands, and that we will not use taxpayers' money to promote trade missions or trade fairs in South Africa.
Do keep a sense of proportion!
Michael Brunson, ITN
We know that you have always been against sanctions because you say that they do not work. Are you really against sanctions because it will mean loss of jobs at home?
Prime Minister
I am against sanctions first, because they do not work; second, because I do not think it can help any situation to create unemployment in Britain in order to create unemployment in South Africa. That seems to me to make sense neither in Britain nor in South Africa.
Michael Brunson, ITN
By agreeing to this package, which does not commit you to a heavy programme of full sanctions, is not Black Africa—perhaps the whole of Black Africa now—going to see you as South Africa's friend?
Prime Minister
No. Black Africa, along with everyone else there, agreed this package. I made it abundantly clear that we are totally against apartheid. Moreover, if you were to try to apply full economic sanctions, that would not persuade the government of South Africa to negotiate—far from it! They are a very strong country [end p3] economically, South Africa. South Africa is the strongest economy in the whole of Africa: 25%; of the population, 75%; of the income. She could in fact manage, even if full mandatory sanctions were applied, for a very considerable time, perhaps indefinitely. That is not the way to persuade her to do what we want her to do, which is to come to a regime that will be stable. I do not believe the present one is, and that I think is a judgment the world has made on it. To be stable, you really cannot judge people by the colour of their skin. You have got, in fact, to make provision for able people, from whatever background, to be able to get into government and for black South Africans therefore to be able to take part in government.
Michael Brunson, ITN
You mentioned in an earlier answer to me the price of keeping the Commonwealth together. Has not the terrible row that you have had here over the past three days split the Commonwealth apart?
Prime Minister
No, it has not. It just has not, and you cannot have talked to them since we got the agreement. We always go through very very tough arguments and discussions. I am very used to it. We steadily put forward our viewpoint. This time we were able to persuade our Commonwealth partners not only that full mandatory sanctions would be bad, but that we really needed a clause that would lead to the suspension of violence if we were going to get dialogue to take place, and we were also able to persuade them [end p4] that we must be constructive in trying to do something to help South Africa to go in the right direction. All of those points have found favour with our Commonwealth colleagues and they have endorsed the Agreement tonight.
Michael Brunson, ITN
The Agreement also, finally, contains this eminent group of people who are going to go to South Africa. That is part, as we understand it, of what was being referred to as “the mechanism towards dialogue.” What makes you think, Prime Minister, that the South Africans are going to receive that mission and treat it properly? They hardly did so with the EEC Foreign Ministers.
Prime Minister
I believe that they will realise that it is in the spirit of trying to be constructive and trying to help them to get the necessary discussions going. We shall point very strongly to them.
If you look at the public statements of the South African Government, they are only too aware that dialogue has to take place, and they have said that the next stage is obviously to talk to black South Africans about how to involve them in the structures of government.
It is not going to be easy to decide who shall be on that talking group. We cannot decide. It is a matter for the people of South Africa. I am sure they will receive the Group and I hope that they will receive it in the spirit in which it is intended—of saying: “Look! You are going in the right direction. We believe you want to do the right thing! We want to help if we [end p5] possibly can and want to give support in doing the right thing if we possibly can!”
Michael Brunson, ITN
The ANC man, for example, yesterday, was saying: “Dialogue!” He said you cannot possibly have a dialogue with that regime!
Prime Minister
I tackled some of the African countries who know the ANC very well about this very point, because I had heard it said that the ANC would not negotiate at all. Our black African colleagues assured me that the ANC is interested in negotiation, has always been interested in negotiation, and if the ANC lets them down, then I think that they will have something very considerable to say.