Prime Minister
Ladies and Gentlemen, you have had very full briefings throughout this Conference and have received the main documents so there is no need for me to speak at any length.
Can I first congratulate Dr Mahathir on his very skilfull and effective Chairmanship of our discussions and thank you for the marvellous hospitality he has arranged. And also may we thank the people of Malaysia.
Now as to the subjects we discussed, let me just take you quickly through them. First, we have agreed an excellent declaration on the environment and again I pay tribute to Dr Mahathir 's initiative in raising this and making the environment a major them of the meeting. We, Britain, had only one concern about the draft declaration and that was that any funds should not go to new institutions or grand offices but to actually improving the environment, to helping countries who are trying to preserve their environment and to strengthening existing institutions. Our position is fully respected in the Langkawi Declaration as it emerged. [end p1]
Second, South Africa. Heads of Government agreed a statement on this which marks a step forward in a number of points from earlier Commonwealth statements. It recognises that change is under way in South Africa, that sanctions ought not to be punitive, and that if sufficient political progress is made in South Africa then the process of relaxing some of the constraints on South Africa should begin. But at several important points the agreed statement makes clear that Britain does not subscribe to the views set out in it.
That was the reason why we subsequently made a further statement of our own setting our Britain's views on these points where we do not agree with the rest of the Commonwealth. We believe that our approach is the more positive and constructive one and takes account of the changes which are actually happening in South Africa. I do not think any more needs to be said on that subject.
Third, we had a useful discussion on the future of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth should feel secure about its role. The principles it enshrines are all set out in the Singapore Declaration of 1971 and it is by following those that the Commonwealth has been able to play a very effective role as well as provide particular help and advice for small states. But we are very ready to see how that role can be made even more effective in the future and it has been agreed that there will be a report on this to the next CHOGM in 1991. [end p2]
My particular hope is that progress in South Africa will make it unnecessary for the Commonwealth to devote so much time to that issue in future so that it can discuss other work.
Fourth, we discussed the problem of drugs. We all recognised the extent of the threat to our young people from drugs and we are seeking to negotiate as many bilateral agreements within the Commonwealth as we can on freezing and confiscating the assets of drug traffickers. I hope there will be many more such agreements in place by the time we meet again in 1991. I was of course able to sign such an agreement with Malaysia while I was here.
And fifth, we elected a new Secretary General for the Commonwealth and I warmly congratulate Dr Anyaoku and wish him well. At the same time I pay tribute to the work which Sonny Ramphal has done over the past fifteen years for the Commonwealth.
We have of course discussed many more technical issues, as will be clear from our final communique. For our part we attach particular importance to securing a statement of support for Hong Kong and I am glad to say that all Commonwealth governments agreed to do this.
The Commonwealth is a unique institution and our discussions here have once again underlined this, discussions which are not hampered by having to be translated into several different languages. We can speak more freely and more frankly than any other international organisation that I know. [end p3]
Yes we do sometimes express ourselves forcefully in a spirit of genuine debate and trying to explain our respective points of view. But no harm is done by that. I am very well satisfied with both the proceedings and the final outcome. [end p4]
Question (Greenpeace News)
I would like to ask a question about the Langkawi Declaration on the Environment. You say that any delay in taking action will result in permanent and irreversible damage and identify the greenhouse effect as one of the issues. In view of the fact that the UK Electricity Board is projecting a 30 percent increase in national electricity consumption and the Department of Transport is forecasting an 60–140 percent increase in traffic on British roads, how in the OK going to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide as the UK have a targetted Carbon Dioxide Reduction Programme and if so, how much by when?
Prime Minister
There is only one way and that is by increasing energy efficiency. You will be aware of the figures which I have given frequently in the House of Commons that although our actual output is now 25 percent above what it was in 1973, we actually use less fuel to acquire that much greater output and it has been achieved by energy efficiency.
May I go on to say that it was we who have proposed a global convention, through the United Nations, for carbon dioxide and the other gases which have a greenhouse effect which also of course includes the carbon fluorochlorides and also includes methane which is another very considerable offender and of course comes from natural agriculture and from waste, untreated waste, as well as the carbon dioxide. [end p5]
We have proposed the Greenhouse Effect Convention and I shall have more to say about that in my speech at the United Nations on its environment session.
Question (Greenpeace News)
Does the UK actually have a target figure for reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
Prime Minister
Not at the moment. It would help of course if those who are very keen on this subject were more supportive on nuclear fuel and nuclear power.
I noted, oh no, no, no, do not go away from the microphone, I noted that when I went recently to Tokyo and went to have a look at some of the work they were doing on the environment and they are working on the greenhouse effect, they made it quite clear that the country in Europe that puts up least carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is of course France and you will be aware that France has an overwhelmingly larger proportion of electricity coming from nuclear than from the fossil fuels.
The way ahead, if one is seriously wishing to get down the carbon dioxide, which I am, is through a method of increasing nuclear fuel and nuclear power but that of course has its own, I am afraid, objectors in other directions. [end p6]
But if you want the carbon dioxide effect to be diminished the way ahead is nuclear power.
Question (Greenpeace News)
Are you recommending that for the UK?
Prime Minister
I think if you look at what we have in fact put out as policy you would not even need to ask the question because you know we proposed four nuclear power stations, subject to planning, by the end of the century. So I think if you read it you might not need to ask all of those questions.
Question
Having issued a separate document to the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Southern Africa, I would like to know what you think about the official declaration now, particularly as regards South Africa? And secondly it is generally believed that your husband, Mr Thatcher, has got business interests in South Africa, would you care to comment?
Prime Minister
I never comment on my Denis Thatcherhusband's private affairs in any way, business or otherwise. It is not a matter that I think I should be subjected to. [end p7]
With regard to the document on Southern Africa, it has precisely the status that it had when it was issued, that if you read it you will see, and you do not need to read it particularly carefully, you will see that considerable parts of it are agreed and you will see that in four major very large paragraphs it makes it quite clear from the communique itself that Britain disagrees with that view and it says clearly in four places.
It does not, however, set out why Britain disagrees nor the view which she takes and therefore it was to fill that vacuum that I issued the further statement on Britain's view. Of course one could have come and had a press conference. Frankly, I prefer to get it down in writing and issue it. Others might have dealt with it differently and come across here, this is the first time I have been here other than a brief visit this morning to do television interviews.
Question (John Dickie, Daily Mail)
While you have highlighted the advances on the South African debate compared to the one that took place at Vancouver, you have also talked of the serious disagreements that emerged. In view of the fact that you went on to say that you want the Commonwealth to have a more effective role, do you not feel somewhat concerned that you are out of step with all the other members of the Commonwealth? [end p8]
Prime Minister
First, the disagreements are in the document itself, actually in the document, and where there are disagreements in the document the Commonwealth view was expressed in those paragraphs but not the British view. It therefore, in the interest of fairness, required the British view to be expressed and that I did.
Secondly, I have taken a different view from most of the Commonwealth on comprehensive sanctions. The Commonwealth could have put on sanctions themselves, they did not. And I think part of it must have been that the Front Line States when they got advice about comprehensive sanctions got advice to the effect that it would not only have done enormous damage to the South African economy, including the most to the poorest of the people, it would also have done enormous damage to the Front Line States.
And so although most of the Commonwealth in theory support comprehensive sanctions I make the point which I have just made, they have not gone any further in putting them on, in other words they have agreed to my view. And secondly, as you know, all of the polls which have been done on black South Africans about this question when they have asked the question: “If sanctions meant unemployment amongst South Africans, are you for them or against them?” two out of three black South Africans, and they are not polls I have conducted, they are ITN and in the Independent and the other one in the new book that has just come out, two out of three black South Africans have said they would disagree with sanctions if they caused unemployment and they would only operate by causing unemployment. [end p9]
So I am in step with the people of South Africa. The Commonwealth in practice is in step with me. The Commonwealth in what it says, we take a different view which I have taken the trouble to set out.
Question (Robin Oakley, The Times)
This is the seventh CHOGM that you have attended. There is now to be a study on the future role of the Commonwealth, where do you believe the Commonwealth is going wrong, how would you like to see it change, and do you think that Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth should change? As a subsidiary to that, you are frequently in a minority of one on these occasions, is that a matter of regret to you or do you actually relish it?
Prime Minister
With regard to the latter question, if it is one against forty-eight, I am very sorry for the forty-eight.
Second, it is not the whole role of the Commonwealth. As I said quite clearly the Commonwealth has a role, it is based on the principles which were set out in the Singapore Declaration, they are principles of freedom under a rule of law and democracy. Certainly not all Commonwealth countries all the time are under democracy and it is part of our job to sustain them through their difficult period until their return to democracy. [end p10]
But as I also pointed out, the Commonwealth is there to serve the interests of its members in accordance with its principles and the amount of practical cooperation that we get, under the scientific and technical cooperation, any difficulty that a particular state might be in, I think perhaps Fiji was an exception but as you know I thought it a very harsh decision of the Commonwealth to turn Fiji out immediately. They could not have done so if Fiji had kept a role, kept a realm, kept a role as a realm, it was only when she went technically to a republic that they had the occasion to turn her out. I thought it was harsh, I thought it was unwarranted and just in fact as we have seen other countries through difficult periods we should have seen Fiji through and I hope she will one day return.
What they are therefore looking at is whether we can enhance our role in relation to other international organisations or whether we can focus it more effectively. Inevitably from one decade to another the focus will shift. After all it has shifted in the last ten years and it will shift again.
So no-one doubts the Commonwealth has a role, it is there to serve its principles and for the purpose of its members and to be influential in world events. It is how to focus that role the more effectively. [end p11]
Alexander Thompson (BBC)
Prime Minister, could I ask you how you felt the discussions on Hong Kong's future went and whether you would have liked a perhaps stronger declaration in support of the Colony?
Prime Minister
I think we have got an effective declaration with which I am well pleased, but wherever I have been on an international body, whether it is in the European Council, whether it has been in the Economic Summits or whether in the Commonwealth, we have always to support the people of Hong Kong through this difficult period and express our support in the communique—and that is what has happened this time.
Question (Hong Kong … Daily News)
Mrs. Thatcher, how would you assess the contribution of Hong Kong in the Commonwealth? Has the CHOGM discussed the role of Hong Kong after 1997? [end p12]
Prime Minister
I do not know whether you have yet seen the communique in detail. I am just trying to find the relevant part. On Hong Kong, this is what it says: “Mindful of the now long-established participation by Hong Kong people in Commonwealth activities, Heads of Government stress the importance of Hong Kong's continued success as an international trading and financial centre. They acknowledge the concerns of the people of Hong Kong and agree that those in a position to do so would assist in any way possible in promoting the continued prosperity of Hong Kong. In this connection, Heads of Government welcome the reaffirmation by China and Britain of their commitment to the full implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong, the success of which was vital to the maintenance of international confidence in Hong Kong.”
I think that puts the essential things: first, Hong Kong's best change of success is of course to keep its continued prosperity; secondly, its best chance of success is to ensure that the Agreement that was signed, under which for fifty years Hong Kong can continue its present way of life after 1997, is honoured. That is our objective and we hope most earnestly that it will turn out to be the fact. [end p13]
Mr. Inghan
I hope ITN have survived!
Prime Minister
Has the camera survived? First things first! (laughter)
Question (?? of Malaysia)
Prime Minister, I have got two questions for you on South Africa.
Prime Minister
Yes?
Question (Same Man)
Since you do not believe in economic sanctions, are you now thinking of launching new diplomatic initiatives to encourage fundamental change in South Africa?
Secondly, how do you draw a distinction between your sympathies for the de Klerk government or regime and your repugnance of apartheid, which is what the de Klerk regime is all about? [end p14]
Prime Minister
I think the two questions, really, are both related.
I see no way in which sanctions themselves will bring about the fall of apartheid. What sanctions will bring about is punitive action against people, very considerable indeed if they work. That is the only way they can work—through punitive action amongst people—and if you see what Archbishop Tutu said about the possibility of sanctions in Panama, it would act on the poorest, most poverty-stricken and add poverty to the oppression which they already suffer. The same would apply, in fact, to the people in South Africa.
So yes, sanctions do immense harm. They do harm to the people you are trying to help. They do not necessarily bring about any political correction. That is being done because everyone knows—South Africa knows too—that the system of apartheid is wrong and cannot survive and must go and steps are being taken to get rid of it, leading up to the Eminent Persons Group concept of negotiations with all the people of South Africa in a peaceful atmosphere, which means of course during the suspension of violence.
So if you think that comprehensive sanctions will bring about the fall of apartheid, I disagree. I think it would retard the fall of apartheid. [end p15]
I think the way we have chosen which is that where you have a country which is operating oppression, you first deny it any arnaments which might be used in that and that is the legitimate compulsory sanctions not operated by the Commonwealth but with the Commonwealth through the United Nations. Then we had the gesture sanctions at Nassau to indicate that we felt very strongly about it.
We have not gone further and you have only to look at the figures of countries that trade with South Africa and I think you will see that almost whatever their view, quite a number of them have increased their trade and it seems to me, therefore, that they are accepting—as I accept—that the economy of South Africa is strong and that one day when we have got rid of apartheid—and I hope it will not be too long—and there is a new government there—and it is for the people of South Africa to decide what that is—they will inherit a strong economy and out of the forty-nine members of the Commonwealth, they will have one to thank for that.
Sally Blyth (Radio Television, Hong Kong)
Mrs. Thatcher, I would like to touch on another aspect of the communique—that of Vietnamese boat people.
How great is the rift between your Government and the United States over the forcible repatriation of boat people from Hong Kong and to what extent is this forming an obstacle to signing a bilateral agreement with Vietnam to send all boat people classified as illegal immigrants back to their homeland? [end p16]
Secondly, are you satisfied with the wording in the communique on this, which does not actually mention involuntary or mandatory repatriation?
Prime Minister
Look! Most countries in the world send back illegal immigrants. The United States send them back into Mexico and repatriates them to Haiti for example. We send back illegal immigrants from China into Hong Kong regularly, about 35,000 a year. There is nothing unusual about countries in the world repatriating illegal immigrants compulsorily.
In Hong Kong, of the 55,000 Vietnamese boat people who have gone there 13,000 so far have been interviewed and are genuine refugees. When the others come they each go through the process of deciding whether or not they are genuine refugees and if they are genuine refugees, then they would go to the staging post which has not yet been set up but which the Philippines have offered to set up in the Philippine Islands. But they will not set it up, I understand, until other people agree that they will take a certain number of boat people from that staging post.
This leaves Hong Kong in a great difficulty. Hong Kong has never pushed away boat people for very obvious reasons and so they go there; but you have seen there is trouble in the camps; they cannot go on steadily accepting more; and if I might respectfully say to those countries who criticise Hong Kong or us about this [end p17] matter, it would be very much more helpful if, instead of just criticising, they said: “Right! We will take a certain number!” but just preaching without having some constructive proposal which involves them is just not good enough.
With regard to your question on the Vietnamese boat people as it is treated in the communique, it is there in paragraphs 46 and 47. We agree with that statement.
Julie Mapleston (ATV, Hong Kong)
Can I follow on from that question and ask you whether Hong Kong will be able to go ahead with mandatory repatriation while the US is still so opposed to it and in regard to the repatriation of illegal immigrants to China, Hong Kong has only just agreed with China to resume that after a row over Yun Yun (phon) case with China saying that it has agreed to resume the normal flow because Hong Kong has made a compromise and Hong Kong denying it has made any compromises. Is Britain prepared to make any compromises to re-establish normal relations with China and get things back on the right path?
Prime Minister
We are trying, as I indicated, to get voluntary repatriation of the non-refugee boat people to Vietnam and we have made some efforts in that respect. [end p18]
As I indicated—and I repeat again—if people criticise any further action, although that further action has not yet taken place, if they mean what they say they should not only criticise it but recognise that the position cannot continue as it is and agree themselves to take X-thousand such refugees. I have yet to receive that kind of statement from the people who have made the criticisms.
Milton Cockburn (Sydney Morning Herald)
Prime Minister, you mentioned in your introductory remarks that these forums are often the occasion for vigorous exchanges, but they do not cause any lasting harm.
In the last twenty-four hours, various Commonwealth leaders have described your actions as among other things despicable, an act of betrayal, disloyal and against the notions of British fair play.
Do you accept that these actions could do lasting harm to Britain's image and reputation?
Prime Minister
No, because I do not believe those things at all and if they find it despicable in order for Britain to put down her view and the reasons for it, then I am astounded that they regard freedom of speech as something for them but not for anyone else. That is absolutely ridiculous! The day they were making such an assertion was the day that South Africa announced that ANC could have a major demonstration, of course, at which Mr. Sisulu would speak. [end p19]
Those people who make use of freedom of speech themselves to put their viewpoint must expect others to do the same thing. What a pity they did not come up to me and complain to my face and directly! Not one has!
Lindsay Murdoch (Melbourne Age)
Are you upset that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, did not tell you about his five-point plan on South Africa when you breakfasted with him last week and do you regard that as an attempt to ambush you?
Prime Minister
No. I did not complain. I am not a complainer! Too big-minded!
John Thomas (Business Times, Singapore)
From your opening remarks, Prime Minister, I get the feeling that you would have preferred the Conference to have gone a little shorter on politics and longer on economics and you mentioned that you would like to see that happen in future CHOGMs. What is your impression of the CHOGM regarding the economic debates and what would you have preferred to have seen? [end p20]
Prime Minister
If I might put it this way: we are winning on economics, winning hands down for the reason which you will know in Singapore, as I had to explain at one point during the Conference when we always get the ritual things: North-South dialogue, rich-poor. I pointed out that countries are rich or poor not according to the natural resources found in their country but according to the enterprise and political system of their people. For example, Singapore, when Lee Kuan YewHarry Lee took over, was comparatively small, could never have sustained the number of people it has now in prosperity unless he ran the kind of economy and politics which he does, which is an enterprise economy with incentives, lower taxation and not one that is nationalised from top to bottom.
Why politicians think they can run industry is a mystery to me! They must be very arrogant to think that they can do it—they cannot! Richness does not come only from natural resources, but from the enterprise, the habits of commerce, industry, work and effort with which people tackle their tasks. It is a viewpoint which is being recognised and is scarcely challenged now when we put it in debate.
Economics? I think when you have had that debate you have done most of the economics. We are not going to have more economic debates in the Commonwealth I think until the South African position has been resolved. I hope that it will be well on its way by the time we have the next conference and then it will be very [end p21] much better because we can discuss other things. The most difficult conference I ever had was the one at Nassau. This has been quite a tea party compared with that! (laughter)
Ross Tunn (Australian Financial Review)
In your separate statement on South Africa, you said that sanctions had caused misery in South Africa but in terms of effecting political change they had been largely fruitless. But then, in the Joint Declaration you joined with the rest of the Commonwealth in calling on the world to maintain all—and I say “all” without qualification—sanctions against South Africa.
Why would you do that if they cause harm but in terms of political change have been largely fruitless?
Prime Minister
Because some of the Commonwealth says that sanctions ought not to be punitive. In fact, I am glad they say they ought not to be punitive but in fact, when they operate, they are punitive. Let me give you an example which I gave:
Within the last few days, there has been a factory in South Africa—I know because the details were sent to me just before I came—which cans pineapple. That particular factory sends its products to the United States and Canada. Now the people of United States and Canada are not purchasing South African pineapple—doubtless they think it would be helpful if they did not. That [end p22] particular voluntary sanction which they have operated has resulted in loss of work for that factory. The company that owns it is no longer able to carry the losses. Consequently, 40 white people have been thrown out of work and 1100 black people. That in a country with no social security system.
Whichever way you like to play it—you say they ought not to be punitive—they are. 1100 families without means of support. Now those who are all for sanctions should be very pleased about that. I am not! I think it disgraceful!