279
Oral Answers
7 JULY 1982
their views in South Africa, has already warned that he will not seek to dissuade his people from violent resistance to such robbery?
Mr. Onslow: I note without comment what the right hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that territorial changes without the free consultation of the inhabitants concerned do not greatly commend themselves to us.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that relations between ourselves and Southern Africa would be improved vastly if we renewed sporting contacts and if they were encouraged by the British Government? Does he further agree that as so many sports there are totally racially integrated, the time has come to amend or abolish the Gleneagles agreement?
Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend will know the origins and scope of the Gleneagles agreement.' So long as South African laws and institutions are based
on racial discrimination, that must be reflected in their participation in international sport.
Mr. Hooley: What practical progress is being made by the Western contact group on independence for Namibia? Has not the merry-go-round gone on long enough? It is not time that the Western Powers brought some effective pressure to bear on South Africa to agree the plan which they agreed in principle two years ago?
Mr. Onslow: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not recollect that when he last asked that question I told him that it was not our intention to hang about. There has been progress. If the hon. Gentleman has been following the reports, he will know that the Five have made good progress in resolving outstanding issues, and that we are intensifying informal consultations with the parties concerned. A fresh series of meetings started in New York yesterday. I hope that they will move to a successful conclusion.
Falkland Islands
7. M. Douglas asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will publish a White Paper on the implications for foreign policy of the events in the Falkland Islands.
Mr. Onslow: My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.
Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that that does not surprise me? Surely the Government cannot persist for too long with the posture of appearing to consider that the position in the Falklands can be status quo ante? Should we not have an assessment of our relations with the Americas as a whole and in particular have regard to the United States assistance in maintaining freedom in the Falklands, if we are to be there for any time at all?
Mr. Onslow: Judging by the hon. Gentleman's preliminary remarks, I think that he understands the problem. Certainly what he said is likely to be true in the longer term. If there is to be a peaceful and secure settlement, it must involve the States with interests in that part of the South Atlantic. At some stage we shall want to move in that direction. I am not saying that our intention is to put sovereignty on the negotiating table. That apart, obviously we want to do our utmost to restore and improve still further our relations with other countries in South America. That is in hand.
Oral Answers
WP
280
Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend comment on the foreign policy implications of the Falkland Islands? As some people occasionally refer to the position in other British colonies as being identical to that in the Falklands, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to make it clear that in regard to Hong Kong we have the best possible relations with the Peoples Republic of China? Does he agree that it is a false analogy to compare the position in Hong Kong with that in the Falkland Islands?
Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend is right, as usual.
Mr. Dalyell: Since Ministers are so certain about what they call the undoubted rock-solid British claim to the Falkland Islands, why has it taken three weeks to give a substantive answer to the courteous letter that I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking what Foreign Office lawyers have done since 1910 when they asked Gaston de Bernhardt of the Foreign Office research department to provide a memorandum on the legal sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? If the Government are so sure, could not the reply be sent quickly?
Mr. Onslow: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received the letter that I wrote to him yesterday explaining that these are complicated matters. We have somewhat better things to do than to go back to 1910 to answer letters from the hon. Gentleman. He must wait his turn while we deal with more important matters.
Lebanon
9. Mr. Latham asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the efforts being made by the Western Powers, through the good offices of Mr. Habib, to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese Government and bring about the withdrawal of external armed forces from Lebanon.
Mr. Hurd: It is clearly important to establish an effective and broadly representative central Government in Lebanon. In their statement of 29 June, the Ten recognised that a final peace in Lebanon requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces, except those which may be authorised by a legitimate Lebanese Government. The Ten committed themselves to support all efforts in that direction, and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Latham: In the interests of the closest relations with our American allies, will my right hon. Friend clarify something that was not abundantly clear from his earlier answer? Do the British Government agree with and support President Reagan's offer to evacuate the PLO and send American troops there?
Mr. Hurd: There is a proposal, which has not yet been agreed by all concerned. It is a complicated proposal. It is not sensible to comment from here on a confused situation in which we are neither directly concerned nor prime actors.
Mr. Healey: In the confusion it is far from clear what status the proposal reported in the newspapers has in relation to the American Government. Is the Minister aware that there seems to be opposition among many members of the Cabinet, and certainly among members of the Congress and Senate whose authority would be required? Will the Minister assure the House that the British Government would impose the same conditions as
152
!