Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

Radio Interview for BBC African Service

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: No.10 Downing Street
Source: Thatcher Archive: COI transcript
Journalist: Elizabeth Ohene and Robbie White, BBC
Editorial comments:

1600-1645. The interview was embargoed until 0001 Saturday 25 March 1989.

Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 7230
Themes: Trade, Foreign policy (USSR & successor states), Foreign policy (Africa), Foreign policy (Asia), Foreign policy (Middle East), Foreign policy (development, aid, etc), Commonwealth (general), Commonwealth (Rhodesia-Zimbabwe), Commonwealth (South Africa), Media, Defence (Falklands), Civil liberties, Religion & morality, British policy towards South Africa

Interviewer

This week our programme comes from 10 Downing Street. Elizabeth Ohene and I are here to talk to the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who is about to leave on another trip to Africa. She will be travelling to Morocco and Nigeria and then onward south to Zimbabwe and Malawi.

Mrs Thatcher's last visit to Africa was a pretty eventful affair. Because of her stand on South Africa and her much stated opposition to economic sanctions there were noisy demonstrations against her in Nigeria.

Since then several African leaders have spoken out against her and even her effigy has been burnt outside State House in Zambia.

Mrs Thatcher, it would seem on the surface that Africa does not love you greatly. Are you not, even you, slightly nervous about travelling there again?

Prime Minister

Not in the least. I never think you should judge a country by the comparatively few people who demonstrate and I think that is a view shared by most people.

Interviewer

Many African leaders, including some who fought long and hard for their independence, have been telling you that the way to bring about political change in South Africa is a mixture of armed struggle and sanctions. Now leaving aside the rights and wrongs of sanctions, has it not been rather arrogant of you to dismiss their arguments out of hand.

Prime Minister

I have never dismissed their arguments out of hand. I have sat and argued it through with them at Commonwealth Conference after Commonwealth Conference, steadily argued it through, and in the end you will have seen that the argument which I have put has in fact prevailed and those that believe in sanctions have not in fact imposed them and have not imposed them for one of the very reasons which I said. [end p1]

First, they will damage your own people enormously; and secondly, you do not set out to relieve the poverty and starvation, say, in a place like Ethiopia and then say: “Well, we are going to put it on in a place like South Africa”. This is just totally absurd.

I have frequently said to my fellow Heads of Government, sitting in a Commonwealth Conference in a rather nice hotel, very well looked after: “Really I find it utterly repugnant that you should talk about putting on sanctions to people who are thousands of miles away, who are trying in fact to get a living, and then in fact you are going to take it away from them”.

Interviewer

But they say they do not mind, Mrs Thatcher, they say …

Prime Minister

Oh no, no they do not, some of the people who speak for them say they do not mind and some of those people who have advised it have never put it on themselves, never, and that you simply cannot get around.

Those who have been most staunchly advising it have thought better of putting on those sanctions themselves. Certain sanctions, say on armaments, we have had on for a very long time, those we do. But if you are trying to help a person, do not deprive them of the means of earning their own living. You would not do it here. I find it repugnant that people attempt to use that weapon.

Interviewer

You say sanctions do not work but did not a mixture of sanctions and armed struggle work in Zimbabwe? Is that not what got rid of Ian Smith?

Prime Minister

Sanctions most certainly did not work. If anything they strengthened the economy of what was then known as Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in my first Commonwealth Conference, in Lusaka incidentally, in Zambia. Quite different the way in which it was solved in one way from the solution to South Africa because the Commonwealth simply said to us: “Look, you call the Conference, we will support you, please keep in touch with us”.

And as you know, we were given the remit of solving that problem. It took far longer than we thought. It was a fascinating, most interesting time, because we called the Conference at Lancaster House but we knew we had got the whole Commonwealth with us and we knew they had given us responsibility and we kept in touch with them on everything and people poured into the room where you are now sitting in fact to see how was it going, and I saw them time after time.

And that really was where I learned a great deal about how other African States think and where I also had the most tremendous cooperation from Samora Machel of Mozambique and ever after that I really had the most tremendous respect for him and it was after that that we really said that we really simply must help more in Mozambique to help him because he helped us at the time when we needed a boost to get us through the Zimbabwe negotiations.

Interviewer

But are they not similar problems that can be solved in the same kind of way?

Prime Minister

No, no, no they are not, this is what I am trying to say to you. Southern Rhodesia had done what is known as UDI and had previously been under British rule. In South Africa, South Africa was given independence, what 7 or 8 years after the Boer War as the Union of South Africa and has been an independent country for a very long time. [end p2]

Interviewer

But it is the same problem of white minority rule?

Prime Minister

In that sense it is the same problem but the way of solving it is not open, the Zimbabwe way is not open to South Africa because South Africa is an independent country.

Interviewer

South Africans have made it clear that they would like you, on this trip, to go to South Africa. Is there any chance that you might go?

Prime Minister

No there is not, because I have made it quite clear that I could not go until something quite positive happens and Mr Mandela is released because if I did go I think it might be misinterpreted and I would not have that for worlds. I think that there are chances of things improving enormously in South Africa once Mr Mandela is released, then I think it opens the way for negotiations to start.

But I could not go just at the moment until there are more signs of that happening. And it would be two things: the release of Mr Mandela and his freedom to put his own views; also I think foreswearing of violence as a way to proceed because when the release of Mandela happens I believe that opens up the possibility for negotiations and it will have to be solved by negotiations.

At the same time you will be keeping the economic success of South Africa which gives everyone a very much better chance of coming through to a highly successful country.

Interviewer

If the South Africans were to release Nelson Mandela while you were on this trip would you consider then popping across the border?

Prime Minister

I do not think they will, I have a very full programme, but it would make possible a visit at some time. Whether I would have enough time to do it then I think would be debatable, but it would make it possible.

But I do not think they will, they do not work that way, so although it is a theoretical possibility I do not think it is likely to happen just exactly while I am there.

Interviewer

I get the impression that Mr Pik Botha raised your hopes on this, that he said it might happen?

Prime Minister

Pik BothaHe was very frank I thought in the interview he did and it was a very interesting and very frank interview and he made it quite clear, I think, and I hope I am not misinterpreting him, which I try not to do, that he himself wished to see the release of Mr Mandela and he too thought that it would open the way to negotiations. So I think that it is on the agenda.

Interviewer

He has been claiming, Foreign Minister Pik Botha, that South Africa is ready to enter a new era, both in its relations with its neighbours and internally. Now do you think that South Africa is about to do this or not? [end p3]

Prime Minister

I am told that things have already changed enormously in South Africa, I cannot judge, it is a long time since I have been there, I think the last time was round about 1972, the only time I went, and I am told by everyone who goes that there is an enormous change, that things are economically very much freer.

We have been helping, as you know, particularly with the education of black South Africans, but I note that there are now far more black South Africans who matriculate than there are white South Africans which you say is as it should be but it is also happening.

And of course some of the fundamental changes of laws have taken place under President Botha. So I am told that things are changing there. We naturally are anxious for things to move on to the next stage. I think most people accept that it must happen and that it will change. It is as if a new world is waiting to be born but it is very difficult, precisely, to bring it about.

Interviewer

What, in your view, is the next stage that they should take?

Prime Minister

Well I have indicated that I think if Mr Mandela is released I think that negotiations become possible with some of the other several many leaders of black South Africans. Obviously they are not a homogeneous people any more than we are in Europe.

It is not possible, I think, for Chief Buthelezi, who is head of the Zulus, it would not be possible for him to negotiate unless Mr Mandela were released. Another very able person comes here and talks sometimes is Chief M'Busa of the South African Swazis and we have helped him with refugees who have poured across the border from Mozambique, from the atrocities of Renamo.

And there are several others who have been used to having power, each in their own particular sphere. Now none of them, but none of them, could enter into negotiations before the release of Mr Mandela, together with the freedom to put his own viewpoint.

We cannot tell them how to do those negotiations. They will have to do them themselves, they really will. You cannot dictate to people, nor should you try. Sometimes you can do things and offer things which may make it easier for them to do it. But they have to live in that country, they have to live there together, all of them, and they will have to come to something which they can negotiate.

As I indicated, it was different in Zimbabwe because we were given the task of negotiating with those who were already internally inside Southern Rhodesia, as it was then, and with Mr Mugabe and with Mr Nkomo, and of course Bishop Muzorewa. And they, when we had done all the signatures and Christopher Soames had gone back to manage the transition and to manage the election. And they were sitting not very far from where you are, we had a settee there in those days and the three of them were sitting on the settee, and I looked at them, very much as one politician to another, and I know that each of them thought he was going to win that election - each of them thought he was going to win. And I had to say to them: “Look, you know that whoever wins we shall abide by the result”.

And there was this total integrity that if we ran the election and there were British bobbies there and British Forces and under a British Governor that it would be all right.

Now there is no kind of supervising authority in South Africa in any way so they will have to come to their own arrangements, but they have all got to live there, they have all got to make a [end p4] future there, and I have the impression, though I am looking from the outside in but we see a lot of people coming over, that things are changing.

The attitudes are changing and I think two other things have been a tremendous advance, if I might call it that: three years ago we would not have thought that they could have reached the agreement they have on Namibia, now it has come about, that is a real plus, that both South Africa and the United States negotiated with Angola and got the result and the elections will take place in Namibia for Namibian independence in November. Now that was a great plus for everyone and also the Soviet Union was very willing, not merely very willing but very actively involved in influencing Cuba.

I also think that Mr Gorbachev is anxious to find an answer to the situation which faces Mozambique, which is indeed very tragic. Again how it will be done I do not quite know but that too will start to move. These are positive things and we must take heart from them.

Interviewer

Is Namibia's independence now inevitable in your view? Is that definitely going to happen or could that still crumble?

Prime Minister

I believe that Namibian independence is inevitable, we have put in, you know, our part of the contingent of the United Nations Forces, we have put in the Signals because upon them depend all the communications.

Interviewer

You seem to set great store on the release of Mr Nelson Mandela but you seem reluctant to talk to the organisation that he leads, the ANC, and it would seem rather strange that you should be advocating that Mr Nelson Mandela be released when his followers who are outside, who are not in jail, you are not very anxious or keen on talking to them?

Prime Minister

I do not talk to those people until they have called a halt to violence. I thought the Eminent Persons Group, who came from the Commonwealth remember after the Bahamas Commonwealth Conference, really had it right when they said: “Yes, we believe the answer is in negotiations in return for a suspension of violence”. I think those were their words.

I think the Government of South Africa would like a renunciation of violence. We did not quite get that when we had the negotiations in Lancaster House. I think it was understood that violence be suspended during the talks and I do not talk to those who in fact pursue their ends by violent means.

I think that the answer to this one is through a negotiation, and they pursue their ends by violent means against their own people as well.

Interviewer

But Nelson Mandela is the leader of the ANC.

Prime Minister

Look, we are trying to get a way through by saying: “Mr Mandela should be released and should be free” and - this is part of the bargain - “should be free in fact to put his own view,” but no-one is free to exercise violence. One tries to get a law-abiding country. Violence is anarchy and the rule of gun and rule by force.

It is not something which I have had any sympathy with at all and so I am trying to go to something which will not be the rule of the gun or the rule of violence at all, but which by negotiation will come to result, for all of those many varied people, many varied backgrounds, it is the home of all of them and they will have to come to a working agreement and only they can do it. [end p5]

Interviewer

Would you be wanting one man, one vote, in South Africa?

Prime Minister

I think you will have to have one person, one vote. That does not necessarily mean in a unitary state. They will have to work it out. From my knowledge of South Africa it is made of many and varied peoples. They will have to work out how it is done.

Interviewer

So you are suggesting a federal system for the country?

Prime Minister

It is not for me to suggest. It is not for us, from this country, to suggest or to impose. It is for us to say that you are the people who are going to live there, you are going to have to work this system. It is not for us, whether from your very estimable organisation, or from No 10, to impose. It is for us to say that you must get down to negotiations, the world is waiting and wanting it. You are all going to have to live there with one another and therefore you must come to what you find a good working arrangement for you to live in peace and to develop the economy of that country to the advantage of you all.

Interviewer

A South African-appointed Judicial Commission in South Africa has recommended a one man, one vote system, with guarantees for minorities. Is that something that you see as hopeful?

Prime Minister

I do not think that you have listened to what I have previously said. They will have to decide. Many many people I think in South Africa must be giving a good deal of time and attention to possible solutions but they will have to decide.

It is most interesting to me that you are suggesting that we can impose something on them.

Interviewer

Is that what you would want?

Prime Minister

No, it is for them to come to what is a democratic system and with something which will give them the confidence to continue and which I believe will still make provision for their many differences, of cultural differences in their society, they are a very varied society, and they will have to decide how to do it, I cannot tell them.

Interviewer

Yes, but if you say that such and such a system is intolerable, like apartheid, and you have said that, there must become things, there must be a point when something might become tolerable?

Prime Minister

No, no, look there are many many different kinds of democracies.

Interviewer

Right. [end p6]

Prime Minister

There are many many different ways. What is intolerable is the denial of human rights wherever it occurs. And therefore so long as those fundamental human rights are denied, of course we will be active in trying to get it changed.

That is why apartheid is wrong, and bad, and must go. That is why some other countries that have had denial of human rights, one says the same thing. It is the denial of human rights that is the fundamental difficulty.

Interviewer

You say you do not like violence in any shape or form but you yourself have been prepared to use violence over a matter of principle, i.e. the Falkland Islands. How can you turn to people who say: “We want to use violence, we have to use violence for principles that we believe in”?

Prime Minister

The Falkland Islands was invaded totally against international law and totally in denial of the right of self-determination of those people. We went back to restore international law, to restore their right to self-determination and to restore the sovereignty. That was in flagrant violation of international law.

Interviewer

But hasn't the South African Government flagrantly violated all human laws and the laws of the United Nations for instance?

Prime Minister

I wonder if you are suggesting that whenever we found the violation of human rights we should march in. I think you would be in very great difficulty if that is your proposition, very great difficulty. We are proposing that this should be resolved by negotiation.

The Falklands was actively involved, invading, the Argentine actively invaded the Falklands against the wishes of their people, every one of which was British and most of whom have been there far longer than some of the people who colonised the Argentine. It was in flagrant breach of international law and we went to the United Nations and had them with us all the way.

Interviewer

Does it worry you Prime Minister that you come across to many people in Africa as a very hard woman who is basically unsympathetic to black people?

Prime Minister

You should have come with us on the tour to Kenya and on the tour to Nigeria - far from it. Do you know in Nigeria when we went up to the Durbar in Kano I thought that there seemed to be quite a lot of people on the streets welcoming us, yes there were small demonstrations, a very small number, I thought there might be about a quarter of a million, the police said it was something nearly like a million.

I do not think they all came out to see a hard woman and certainly that is not what they saw.

Interviewer

But you know many people, we get letters to the office, to our programme, and most of them seem to be saying: “Mrs Thatcher simply does not feel sympathetic towards black people”. [end p7]

Prime Minister

But I also get many many letters and saying that they are very very glad that I have stood out against sanctions because so many of them would have suffered very very badly under it.

Interviewer

But do you feel handicapped in speaking against abuses of human rights and dictatorial regimes in black Africa simply because you are afraid that they might see you as being unsympathetic to black people?

Prime Minister

No, because I duly point out wherever I go that the viewpoint that we take up actually is far more expensive for us than those who simply stand up and say: “Put on sanctions”. Because we did not just say: “Look, keep ordinary trade going”. We also said: “We in fact will put in a good deal of aid first to training black South Africans”, we are now about £10 million a year. [end p8]

Secondly, we have put in, in the last eight years, something like one billion pounds into helping the Front Line States to build up some of their alternative transport. We also train some of the Armed Forces of Mozambique so that they can tackle Renamo. We also trained, as you know, the Army of Zimbabwe because in the end, after independence, it was to weld three armies into one.

That is not an unconstructive viewpoint. I am doing the really constructive work.

Now the next thing that they want - I can tell you - is not only education for more black South Africans, which is happening. I mean you know full well, as I do, there are a large number of highly professional, highly qualified black South Africans, a very considerable number and very well off, some of them, some of them. And also that some of the companies there are giving shares to all of their employees, black and white alike.

Now this is highly constructive. The irritating thing for those people who are highly qualified in black South Africa, highly cultured, quite well off, is that they cannot take part in the government and that must be extremely irritating and frustrating for them just because of their colour and I think it is totally and utterly wrong. [end p9]

Interviewer

Prime Minister, I meant that you find yourself unable to speak against human rights in black Africa, not in South Africa necessarily. You are able to speak about abuse of human rights in South Africa but what about the countries north of South Africa?

Prime Minister

I speak on abuses against human rights wherever I find them.

Interviewer

I have never heard you speak against dictatorial regimes, many of them in Africa, say in Malawi for example, where military governments overthrow duly elected governments. I never heard you say that is unacceptable? [end p10]

Prime Minister

No, and I certainly would not say that about General Babangida because there were, as you know, enormous problems in Nigeria and I am afraid that they have gone from military government to some kind of democracy [sic]. It is not always easy to transplant our form of democracy to others.

I remember years ago as a student reading a book, I think it was Leo Amery who said that to have our particular kind of democracy you really need to have come to it much more gradually and have people educated and used to accepting the responsibilities. The great joy was when it was transplanted to India that it worked. It does not always transplant precisely to other countries in Africa. We believe in it, we believe it is right, and we believe that people themselves must be involved in decisions through a vote.

But I again would not always condemn sometimes the arrangements where people have to go for a time to military government. I think the acid test in Nigeria is that when they have been to military government, are now very anxious to return to democratic government.

But you know it is very easy for you just to condemn, condemn and condemn. Those people have to start to run countries and to run them in a way which will steadily go to a better deal for all peoples. And that is both a better economic deal and a better political deal. [end p11]

We set about it to be really constructive. We are visiting Malawi. President Banda, who was here for many many years in our country, runs that country, he is now life-President. He has in fact done very well with very few resources in that country in making it self-sufficient and I think have been quite remarkable.

Interviewer

And do you approve of his political style?

Prime Minister

It is not for me to comment on his political style. I think he has done very well for his people, very well indeed. I remember when we were thinking of putting three countries together in a Federation of Central Africa - Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, or Zambia and Zimbabwe as they are now, with Nyasaland, which as you know is now Malawi - and I remember the whole reasoning: that Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia had the mixture both of resources and very good rich soil, Nyasaland had neither resources and very poor soil, therefore you had to put the three together to make a sound economy.

Now it did not work, so if it does not work the federation broke up. You cannot impose things on people and you have an independence in Southern Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, where it is working reasonably well, you have enormous problems in Zambia although they [end p12] have a very rich soil, the people do not like going to farming but you have a very rich soil. And in Nyasaland, now Malawi, which had no natural resources other than its soil and it was poor soil, they in fact have been governed so that they grew enough not only to feed their people but also to export.

That is a very considerable achievement. It is not for you and I sitting here to condemn it.

Interviewer

Well there are quite a number of people who are languishing in jails in various countries in Africa who would be rather depressed to hear you say that simply because somebody, as you say is doing very well for his people, such abuses should not …

Prime Minister

Is it not better that we go to those countries and tackle them and say: “Look, we understand that these things are happening, you know it is flatly contrary to everything in which we believe”?

Interviewer

Do you say that when you go? [end p13]

Prime Minister

Indeed I have said it. I have said it several times. Indeed I can remember occasions on which I have said it and I can remember certain undertakings which have been given to me by Heads of Government which have been totally honoured.

But what you say, it seems to be very strange. You come to No 10 and you are expecting me to go and tell them how to behave. I am saying certain things we believe in which are quite fundamental and I will go on doing that - freedom under a rule of law. But freedom incurs responsibility, you cannot have the freedom unless you are prepared to accept the responsibility and it is not freedom to oppress others, that is what a firm rule of law is about.

But it is very strange to me that you come here, almost asking me to act in the old imperial style.

Interviewer

No, far be it for me to ask you …

Prime Minister

Ah good, I am amazed.

Interviewer

Far be it from me, but what I would want to know, Prime Minister, is the aid that you give many African countries. You have a reputation for people wanting to stand on their own two feet … [end p14]

Prime Minister

And don't you?

Interviewer

Certainly I do.

Prime Minister

Excellent. You have more independence that way, more dignity.

Interviewer

But do you have any machinery to monitor and ensure that these monies help people to stand on their own two feet?

Prime Minister

Eighty percent of our aid is what we call tied aid. That is to say that we can monitor it because they are schemes which usually are helping people to do just that. There also is of course an emergency aid where you get the famine and you must have the relief immediately and we do our level best to put that through the voluntary agencies because it often gets to the people faster that way.

Otherwise it is tied aid. They are schemes of training or they are schemes of building things or they are schemes of transport or they are schemes of education or they are schemes of technical cooperation which we can in fact monitor. [end p15]

Where it comes, for example, to helping them with forests we can in fact do the training ourselves. You come, it may be a dam they want, it may be a road, it may be a railway, yes that is tied aid so in fact we are in a position to monitor it.

On balance of payments help, for example, it is usually done in a way where they will say: “Look, we cannot afford to buy these things because we have not got any foreign currency”. So we give balance of payments help: “Right, you want certain engines, you want certain spare parts in engineering, you want certain things to get your power station going, we will finance that on balance of aid”. So in that respect you do have a very ready system to monitor on tied aid.

Interviewer

But does this turn out in the end just as help for British firms to do business?

Prime Minister

Yes it does usually. As I say, 80 percent of it is tied but you are faced with emergency aid, you are faced with something like Bangladesh or Ethiopia. It does not always work, for example, in a place like Ethiopia where in fact you just have to get food to them as fast as you can and as best you can. [end p16]

Not all of it might get to the people whom you are wanting it to get to but it is best that quite a large proportion of it does than you send none at all.

And when you get the floods, for example, in Bangladesh you just have to send what help they want. Some of it may be from food stocks in this country or spares in this country but the important thing is to get them the relief which they want. Bangladesh had fifty million pounds worth of aid last year, but my goodness me it is a country that has enormous problems.

And the third way we do it is on the sub-Saharan countries, the very poorest of countries, where they have got into debt because they have taken on loans which they could not afford and they are never going to get out of it. But then in fact we have written off those loans and called them grants.

Interviewer

But in your mind, when you are giving aid to Africa, is your first consideration of what it means to Britain and what it might mean to British businessmen where there are investments, or do you feel in the back of your mind that because of the colonial experience you have some kind of responsibility for Africa? Or does Britain always comes first? [end p17]

Prime Minister

Neither. There is a third one that you just have not mentioned. There is a country which now is much more prosperous than we used to be and we are in fact, we have duties towards others. We were among the first to go to Ethiopia and I think our help, for example, to Bangladesh has been amongst the highest.

So no, there is a feeling that you have to do things: a mixture of Government aid and private sector aid because private sector aid can often get there with investment more directly and to things which they want provided they have, as you know, a code of practice on investment.

So really, Ethiopia was a classic example, we were among the first, if not the first, to get aid there and to mobilise Europe too.

So it is a combination that …

Interviewer

But does it worry you at all that British money might be propping up governments that are repressing their own people?

Prime Minister

Look, I think you just have to say we hope that the majority of it will get to people. The fact that that might not be so as far as every single piece of it is concerned should not stop you from trying to get the aid there in the best way you can. [end p18]

As I have indicated, quite a lot of it you can monitor because it is tied now. I went to open a big dam in Sri Lanka, that was £100 million. Now you can see the dam and it has done an enormous amount of good. It is a tragedy that Sri Lanka has other problems at the moment. But you cannot just say: “Well we do not think any of it will get there, therefore we will not do it”.

We put quite a lot through the Save the Children Fund and such voluntary organisations.

Interviewer

A couple of questions about Morocco, which we have not mentioned. You are going to Morocco, what will you be talking to King Hassan about?

Prime Minister

We shall be talking to King Hassan about all matters on which he is so very expert. He came here on a State Visit. He has enormously wide experience I think of the whole of the Islam world, having been a descendant from the Prophet, his views are extremely interesting and wise and also we are very anxious to increase trade.

But he is, as you know, anxious about the relationship with Europe as well after 1992. Something very interesting is happening, they have among that North African coast, as you know, come together in a loose association, to coordinate their approaches to Europe and to European trade. [end p19]

Also of course he is very knowledgeable indeed about the Arab&slash;Israel problem, as you know Morocco has a considerable number of Jewish people and quite a lot of Moroccan Jews did go to Israel and he knows a great deal about that as well.

Interviewer

At the moment Britain is very much in Moslem countries' bad books because of the Salman Rushdie affair. Is this something which you will be talking to him about and looking for his support?

Prime Minister

I shall not raise it. If it is raised with me I shall give our viewpoint, that freedom of speech is freedom to say things which other people do not agree with. As I have said on more occasions than one, many of us were very concerned when in this country someone made a film called “The Last Temptations of Christ” which offended many many Christian people. We took the same view that we take about the book which has been written about Islam. These great religions will endure long after the name of the people who have written things about him will be forgotten.

Interviewer

You mentioned the Middle East. Do you think Britain really has any role to play in the Middle East any more? Are we not a finished super-power when it comes to the Middle East and Israel? [end p20]

Prime Minister

No we are not. Goodness me, you are down in the mouth, hang-dog, pessimistic, aren't you? No, we have had a very long relationship with the Arab peoples, long before they knew that they had masses of oil. Indeed as you know, particularly through the Trucial States in the Gulf, and also of course we have a historic relationship with Palestine.

So we have occasion to know quite a number of things. And of course there are many people for example in the Sudan that will tell you when the Sudan was run by I think something like fewer than four hundred people from the Sudan Civil Service from this country that it was run extremely well.

We have a great deal of experience, of feeling. We are naturally outward-looking and I think we still have a contribution to make.

Interviewer

You know in Africa, especially in the former British colonies, there are many people who feel you abandoned what was the Commonwealth or the old colonies in Africa, long ago when you opted for Europe. They can see it in the immigration laws, they can see it in the way you are more centred towards Europe now. Should people really put any store on the Commonwealth? [end p21]

Prime Minister

Yes. It is a grouping of nations which girdles the earth. Many people come to the Commonwealth Conference who do not go to any other big international conference, save perhaps the United Nations, and they find that the discussions we have are extremely valuable and we really do get to talk about things about different regions.

And I think you will find, if you look around the world, that there are many many regional organisations in the world, there after all is an Organisation of African Unity. It came out with something, one thing I remember particularly, very wise when it said that: “We are going to stick to existing boundaries in Africa, because if we change them there is no end to the change and therefore we will stick to them.” It is very influential. You will find a regional organisation developing along northern Africa now. You will find various Asian groupings developing.

I think you cannot deny geography but it does not alter the fact that you also have other historical agencies and other interests which make the Commonwealth still a grouping which has very considerable meaning.

And for example, we always have a day, half a day, possibly longer, at the Commonwealth Conference discussing the problems of small islands because dotted around the world as they are they have a very difficult problem of defence. And they have to have groupings and there are within the Commonwealth regional groupings and they too have their conferences. [end p22]

Do you have anything nice to say, or ask, or optimistic to say?

Interviewer

Do you like Africa Prime Minister?

Prime Minister

I like Africa, I like Africa I like India, I find it is a totally different way of life which I find very very fascinating. But I know it is not for us to tell them how to do things.

What we can do is try to facilitate the education, try to facilitate the technical development, try to say: “Look, come and learn how we do it” and then give them the benefit of your experience and they have to decide. That is what independence for countries and independence means.

Interviewer

Would you be brave to try some African clothes on when you go on your trip?

Prime Minister

No, I think it would be not brave, I think it would be a little bit gimmicky. [end p23]

Interviewer

Why?

Prime Minister

Why, because I naturally go and wear my own clothing.

Interviewer

You should try, I think they are wonderful.

Prime Minister

Oh, I think they are beautiful but what I do is, we buy some of the very very attractive materials and have made up in our own style. I think that is lovely what you are wearing. But I am not there to be gimmicky. I am there to see if we can do anything to help and learn from it.

But you know everywhere I go there is a whole posse of photographers following who are terribly anxious that you should try on any hat, any head gear, anything that looks odd or strange on you and then in the end someone will write and say it was a gimmicky tour.

Interviewer

One question I forgot to ask earlier, there has been a lot of speculation that you are trying to get together some kind of Southern African Regional Conference to which South Africa would be invited to try and solve Southern Africa's problems, is there any truth in that speculation? [end p24]

Prime Minister

I am not myself trying to get together such a conference. I am just very anxious indeed that South Africa should start to tackle her own problems. I am …

Interviewer

Would it be a good idea?

Prime Minister

Immensely pleased, again I think the countries of the region possibly have to do it. If they come along and say: “Will you help?” that is different. But look, I only have to say to you we are obviously an ex-colonial overlord and we therefore have to be very very super-sensitive as to how we deal with things and there is certain help which is readily available.

Some people will say: “Well can you give us help about drafting a constitution?” Of course we can, we have got people who have done heaven knows how many of them. They ask for help, it is there.

But to try to impose it upon them is a pretty insensitive thing to do. I am very much aware, particularly aware when we go to that Commonwealth Conference, that I am there as one country equal with others and it means that we have to be careful in the way in which we even offer help. [end p25]

Interviewer

But a lot of people in black Africa feel that you have the muscle and that you should use it where it comes to South Africa - you and Japan and America and France, if you all got together and used the muscle then South Africa would change.

Prime Minister

I am never quite sure what you call the muscle. I think South Africa is changing. The number of things, reforms, which actually President Botha has implemented, are very considerable indeed. They set South Africa on the path to reform after she got off to the wrong way in apartheid. I think if you want people to come the right way to ending apartheid you have to encourage them.

Now I know for example we look at all kinds of requests which come not necessarily from the government but from other groupings in South Africa, the thing that is stopping more black South Africans from purchasing their homes, the ones who work for companies, is that they cannot get the money to build them and to lend to them.

Now it is much much more constructive to say: “Look, I will lend you money to do that or we will grant aid money to do that” than it is just to hit out. Believe you me hitting out is the simplest thing, particularly when you are hitting out with words and hitting out. It may make you feel good but it is the cost of the lives and the welfare and the health of many many other people and it is not a thing for which I have any sympathy. [end p26]

We always try to be constructive and I believe it is that way which is telling. You know that there are something like three million people who go into South Africa to work, to remit their monies home to other countries in Africa. You do not help people by destroying an economy because you destroy their morale, you destroy their well-being. You help them by trying to save the economy, by building up their experience of responsibility through their experience in industry and commerce and that is happening as you know in black South Africa.

More and more and more black South Africans run things. Not surprising, they are very able, many of them have had exactly the same education as we have.

Interviewer

Are you frightened that the current leadership struggle in South Africa is going to slow things down?

Prime Minister

No, I am not frightened of the current leadership struggle in South Africa problems. I think their path is set on getting rid of apartheid and it is how best to bring that about and I think that there might be a timing factor, because of the present problems, but I think it is set in the direction in which you and I would wish it to go, and it will come about. [end p27]

Interviewer

Prime Minister, we have been talking about constantly criticising South Africa, but you never seem to be able to condemn abuses in black African countries?

Prime Minister

Is that not precisely what we did for a long time with Uganda, for a very long time, just exactly that?