TV Interview for ITN (special Commonwealth Summit on South Africa)

(Note: Beginning of Michael Brunson, ITN's question not on tape)

Michael Brunson, ITN

What I am getting at is you have offered them something; you have offered them something which people did not expect you ever would offer—economic sanctions—because you saw that they were pressing you hard for economic sanctions of their own, the idea being that you would perhaps defuse what they were going to offer by sanctions of your own and they said: ‘No, Mrs. Thatcher, we do not want to know about it!’

Prime Minister

But they did not. They did not say that at all. They said: [end p1] ‘Look. You are going to do these things and we accept what you are going to do. We are going to do in some respects a slightly different package and in some respects a very similar one!’ and we replied back and said: ‘Yes, but do not forget the extent of our interests …   . will have a far greater impact in reality than the greater number of things which some of you are proposing to do and you have got to take that into account!’—and they did. So I just do not recognise what you are saying as being part of the conference which I have attended.

Michael Brunson, ITN

Well, the general perception might well be that three or four sanctions by one country, namely Britain, cannot ever—and two of those voluntary—equal a dozen or more measures by forty other countries.

Prime Minister

But it can equal in many respects the contribution of many many Commonwealth countries, many of whom have very little contact with South Africa—no interests there, no people there—and they can go through a whole list of these measures and say: ‘Yes, we agree!’ and they will not matter a penny piece to them because it just does not affect them.

Michael Brunson, ITN

You are really saying then that some of the Commonwealth suggestions were irresponsible, that they were lightly tossing these things out? [end p2]

Prime Minister

No, Mr. Brunson, I am not. If you have forty-seven countries belonging to an organisation then the chances are that they have very different interests; they have different geographical interests; they have different financial interests. A colony of, say, 50,000 people, which is a full member of the Commonwealth, obviously cannot have the impact that a measure of the whole European Community has. They recognise that.

The Front Line States, again, have a totally different interest. We recognise that.

So what I am saying is that the Commonwealth was very realistic and very sensible and recognised that differing countries have different interests and that must be reflected in the communique—and it was.

Michael Brunson, ITN

But you see, they wanted to get you on board, for example with things like air links. They plainly think that air links is terribly important. They wanted you to join them and you would not do it.

Prime Minister

Mr. Brunson, there is no way in which that conference is competent to deal with air links. They are negotiated through different organisations. Our air links with South Africa are subject to an agreement which for any change would require two months consultation and then a year's notice. That is a fact of life, and some of the things which they are doing will eventually have to be negotiated in other fora. That also is a fact of [end p3] life and that is why when it came to those things we said: ‘Look, this is not the forum in which to deal with these things!’ Nevertheless, they went ahead and indicated their intent.

Michael Brunson, ITN

Prime Minister, finally, did you perhaps take a very hard-nosed and perhaps difficult decision today that the famed Commonwealth consensus just was not worth preserving in this case?

Prime Minister

But the Commonwealth consensus really did hold. A consensus is a communique and certainly there are differences in some paragraphs of the communique, which is not perfect by anyone, but which we can all go along with. That is what we have got. That is usually what negotiation is.

As you know, this word ‘consensus’ is one I very rarely use because normally I prefer ‘agreement’. Sometimes, you cannot agree with everything and you cannot agree with the language, so yes, you have differences and there are some other phrases which you let go through because they do not suit you, they are not what you would have chosen, but nevertheless, you can somehow live with them if they can live with them too, and so it is really a communique which is a true consensus among seven Commonwealth countries who were there today. We could not bind the others; we could only recommend it to the others.

Michael Brunson, ITN

I take all that you say, Prime Minister, but would you not say that some people, looking at this document and seeing that [end p4] there is a long list from one side and only a few points from the other, would not people perhaps say that is a mark of a divided Commonwealth?

Prime Minister

No, I would not. You simply cannot line up forty-seven countries which go from ourselves, 55 million people, with enormous interests—about £12 billion in investment in South Africa—800,000 people in South Africa entitled to British passports, frequent air links, frequent contacts. You simply cannot compare that with the interests of many of the countries of the Commonwealth. You cannot compare the impact which, should the European Community take it, a ban on coal to the whole European Community would have with some of the other things which will be very small indeed when implemented by other countries. Some countries, as I have indicated, can go through the whole of that list and say: ‘Yes, I agree!’ and it will have no effect on their economies or on them at all. For others, the impact will be considerable. They recognise that. That is sensible.