Martin Sixsmith, BBC
Prime Minister, is this the best agreement you could have hoped for when you came here today?
Prime Minister
I think it is a very good agreement. It is measured, it is constructive, and I think it is the best to try to achieve the result of negotiations that we all want.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
It is not exactly an agreement that will strike fear into the hearts of the Pretoria Government though, is it?
Prime Minister
If you are trying to persuade someone to do something, I am not sure that you should try to strike fear into their heart or make threats. Persuasion is the best possible [end p1] weapon that we have, I think with the Community behind us—also do not forget I think the Commonwealth is behind us in wanting to achieve results by negotiation.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
Now supposing everything does go wrong, let us say South Africa does not release Nelson Mandela, it does not lift the ban on the ANC and Sir Geoffrey 's visit yields no positive results, will Britain then feel duty-bound to introduce the sanctions outlined in the Summit communique?
Prime Minister
Well, you know from what the communique says that during the next three months we are going to enter into consultations with all other industrialised countries who trade with South Africa. That seems to me a reasonable contingency without deciding in advance what may happen.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
But the President of the Council, Mr. Lubbers, said quite clearly that all the member countries, including Britain, have committed themselves to sanctions if there is no response from Pretoria. [end p2]
Prime Minister
I understand from the questioning I had at the press conference that there are many different interpretations being put on what was said. I prefer to stick to what actually we all agreed in writing, in paragraph 5. That is: in the meantime, in the next three months, the Community will enter into consultations with other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed, covering in particular a ban on new investments, the import of coal, iron and steel and gold coins from South Africa.
That is what we all agree to word for word, and I do not think it tries to help to put a gloss on it.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
The wording then is “might be needed”, so even if South Africa simply ignores the EEC demands there may still be no sanctions?
Prime Minister
The wording is “might be needed” and “consultations with other industrialised countries”. I think everyone would realise if other industrialised countries were merely going to pick up the trade which might come from any application of sanctions by Europe, that would be most unsatisfactory and have absolutely no effect whatsoever. [end p3]
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
But what the Community is saying to Pretoria then is: “Mend your ways or we might have to think about doing something about it!”?
Prime Minister
What the Community is saying to Pretoria is precisely what is in the document. Please do not try to put a gloss on it because that it will only cause trouble. We do want to see an agreement which results in negotiation. We want an end to apartheid. We want an end to bloodshed and violence. We want all people in South Africa to have a proper part in the democratic processes of their country. Let us stick to the positive constructive way ahead and not try to find differences that are not in it.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
Well, the text itself does call on South Africa to take certain steps to end apartheid, releasing Nelson Mandela and lifting the ban on the ANC. Do you really believe that the measures agreed here in the Hague will have that effect?
Prime Minister
What the text indicates is that you cannot get a negotiation so long as some of the black African leaders are detained by the South African Government, because if you are [end p4] going to negotiate, they have got to be free to negotiate and therefore they must be released and the organisation which they represent must not be banned, otherwise they could not speak freely. So that is a condition to the negotiations which we all seek, and it is a very very positive condition.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
Do you consider it a triumph for Britain that sanctions have effectively been put on the back-boiler, because some of your European partners did want sanctions straightaway?
Prime Minister
I consider it a triumph for all people of good will who want to see peaceful change by negotiation and an end to violence. Always remember it is so easy to hit out, but it is not the way which achieves results.
Martin Sixsmith, BBC
Did the Summit take into account the possibility of economic retaliation from South Africa if sanctions were imposed straight away? Perhaps that was a factor in your decision to postpone sanctions. [end p5]
Prime Minister
If you are considering or discussing sanctions, you always have to take into account the possibility of retaliation. After all, if you are applying sanctions to someone else, they may well apply a sanction to you. But what you really take into account is: “are sanctions likely to achieve the objective?” You see, I think that is the question to which many people have not addressed their minds. They assume, some of them, that sanctions would work. Other people assume—and they have just as much right to their view—assume that sanctions would hit out at the government of South Africa and have exactly the opposite effect. In other words, they would not be more likely to negotiate, but less likely.