Question
Mrs. Thatcher, how was what you had to say on South Africa received?
Prime Minister
I do not think they can quarrel with it because what one said was that if sanctions do work, they operate by increasing poverty and we are trying to relieve it by supporting Operation Hunger and helping to provide money to relieve hunger. As we help to provide money to relieve hunger, whether it is in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, in Mozambique, and we help to provide money to relieve the difficulties of refugees, it seems very strange that there should be people who want further sanctions which can only in fact increase poverty and I gave them an example of a factory which has had to close recently, which I know about, because of markets closed down in the United States and Canada. Consequently, there are some 1150 people placed out of work by those sanctions. So one does not deny that sanctions work by increasing the poverty of the people and throwing them out of work where there is no social security system. [end p1]
We, in fact, spend our time trying to relieve poverty and hunger. We do not like it and we do not like increasing it. They listen, they do not argue with that. Also, things are changing in South Africa; they are coming the way we want them to come and really people when they are doing that, want not sticks waved at them and threats—they want a bit of encouragement.
Question
But the rest of the Commonwealth still want sanctions though.
Question
Was there not rather a rough discussion, Prime Minister?
Prime Minister
John SimpsonJohn, you have been at these many times. It was nothing like Nassau.
Question
There have been some fairly harsh words said against you and people said you were also quite rough with them back. [end p2]
Prime Minister
Rough? No! I adduce the facts such as, for example, that when Indians were turned out of African countries between 1970 and 1974, turned out, expelled from African countries, we took them. I adduced the hard fact that we brought Zimbabwe to independence, we honoured the result of the election, we helped her to form her army, we have helped her ever since. Our credentials are impeccable.
We also do not just say that we are against apartheid. We help in many many ways. We finance many black South Africans to have a full-time higher education either in our own country or in the liberal universities in South Africa. We finance low-cost housing for black South Africans and help with mortgages. We finance some three hundred projects in African villages. We have helped the Front Line States with the problems which they have to the tune of £1.1 billion since 1980. We help to relieve hunger in South Africa. There is something called “Operation Hunger” which we help with. That relieves hunger in some of the rural areas and in some of the homeless in South Africa. So we do not just say we are against apartheid and leave it at that. We actually give practical help to black South Africans and it is very hard when … . that you hear a refrain again and again over there is “more and more sanctions” . [end p3]
I am not suggesting we take off our existing sanctions—they are comparatively small as you know—but I am saying that it is no help to the people in South Africa of whom every opinion poll says—as you know, one was conducted by ITN and another by the “Independent” —every opinion poll on black South Africans which puts the question: “If sanctions cause unemployment, would you like sanctions?” every single one says two out of three do not want sanctions. So I reckon I am in tune with them with much more practical help. Apartheid was not inherited from the British Government and it will go. Things have improved very considerably. There is quite a long way to go, but it will not be helped by this action. This action will cause actual harm to black South Africans—it will not bring about political reform.