I

I 4~ 4V0 1j 9 8 2' IN T MTONAL YEAR~ OFMOBILISAT'ON FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFIC FROM THE ANT 1-APARTIZID MOVMENT, FOR PRESMTAT ION TO} Mt. RJCI441) LUCY, -MP , MINISTER.OF, STATE, FO>WI GN AND MH'1NWEA4LTU OFFICE Anti- Movement 89 charlotte Street London WlPD 2 DQ MJonday Sth March, 1982 /

The United Nations General Assembly, on 17 December 1981, -roclaimed 1982 as the International Year of Mobilisation for Sanctions against . The Resolution proclaimed the International Year "recognising that the Paris Declaration on Sanctions against South Africa, adopted by the Conference, provided the framework for effective international action for the elimination of apartheid and for averting the growing threat to international -peace and security." The Resolution also invited all Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations and institutions to participate effectively in the observance of the Year in co-operation with the United Nations. On 29 January 1982, the Chairman of the.Anti-Apartheid Movement, Mr. Robert Hughes, M.P., wrote to Lord Carrington seeking a meeting to discuss Britain's contribution to the International Year and stated, inter alia: "We are aware of the vote of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations General Assembly against th* proclamation of this International Year. However we are confident that this will not preverit Her Majesty's Government from making an appropriate contribution towards the International Year. We have in mind, forexample, the G vernment's commitment to the United Nations mandatory arms embargo and the Gleneagles Agreement as possible areas within the context of the International Year where the Government could make an important contribution towards securing wider public support for Government policies against apartheid." . 14

-3- II In his letter of reply, on 19 February, the Minister of 6tate, Mr. Richard Luce, M.P., stated:"I should make clear that while the British Government remain firmly opposed to the system of apartheid and the harsh measures used to enforce it, we will not be supporting or participating in activities of the International Year of Mobilisation forSanctions against South Africa. We continue to believe that further moves to isolate South Africa by sanctions or other ostracism would strengthen the opponents of reform and push South Africa deeper into an attitude of resistance to change. Mandatory economic sanctions would also be extremely damaging to Western economies (including our own) and to South Africa's neighbours, some of whom are amost totally dependeDt on South Africa. These could well suffer severe aonomic damage even if they were exempted from the obligation to impose sanctions themselves. "In addition, sanctions in the Namibian context would in effect represent the abandonment of the Five's current efforts (contrary to the wishes c" the Front Line States and most African governments). and would condemn Namibia to indefinite delay in acl ieving independenceand to the prospect of prolonged bloodshed and violenZez" The Anti-Aparthei, Movement cannot accept this. The situation in Southern Africa has now developed to the stage where the application of effective and mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa has become an urgemt imperative. This assessment is shared by the vast majority of membeor $tates of the United Nations, expressed in the overwhelming votes in favour of sanctions, in successive sessions of the United Nations General Assembly and, in particular, at the United ,ations/Crganisation of African Unity International Conference for Sanctions against South Africa, held 4t the UNELSCO headquarters in Paris, in May 1981. In view of the South African regime!s persistent refusal to respond to the appeals of the United Nations . ecurity Council, as well as the General Assembly, the policy of sanctions represents a minimal and non-violent programme of action,

-4 - aimed to halt South Africa's aggression against the Front-Line States, to secure South Africa's withdrawal from Nar ibia, and to'hasten the elimination of the system of apartheiG itself. The Anti-Apartheid Movement woujld therefore urge the Government to abandon its negative attitude towar the International Year and to consider the following proposals for action during the Year: - (a) Measures to secure the more effective implementation of existing Government, oolicies The British Government currently supports the isolation of South Africa in a number of areas, including sporting relations with South Africa, the arms embargo and military collaboration, nuclear relations with South Africa and relations with the so-called 'independent' bantustans. We believe that this Internbtional Year.of Mobilistion for Sanctions against South Africa -provides a unique opportunity for the Government to take measures to ensure the more effective implementation of its policies. I i) The Sports Boycott There has been a clear failure by the Government effectively to implement its responsibility under the Gleneagles Agreement. This is confirmed by the large number of sporting relations which exist between Britain and South'Africa, of which the current cricket tour has been the most widely publicised. There are a number of measures which should be adopted as a matter of urgencyi to ensure the strict implemntation of the Gleneagles Agteement, in particular the candellation of the No Visa reciprocal agreement between South Africa and Britain, which would enable the British Government to refuse entry to

-5- the United Kingdom by any sports team or individual sportspmi "flom South Africa planning to compete in Britain in defianc of the Gleneagles Agreement. (A number of Western Governments have recently taken such steps). Secondly, the British Government should, through the Sports Council, withhold all funding of national sports hodies and organisations which refuse to adopt measures to prevent members of their sporting codes from-participating in South Africa. (If necessary, the Government should ehact legislation to allow national spQrting organisations to ,adopt such measures.) ij) The Arms Embargo There has been growing evidence that the mandatory arms emba'go needs tohe tightened and strictly enforced if it is to prove an effective instrument in preventing South Africa's military build-up. IIowever, when in September 1980 the United Nations Security Council's Sub- Committee on the Arms Embargo proposed various such neagares to strengthen the4 toarg; the ifritish Government expressed itis reservations on all sixteen proposals. Evidence which the Anti-Apartheid iMovement has prepared confirms the need for such measures, not only Lo be adopted by the United Nations Security Council, but also by the United Kingdom Government. iii) The stated policy of the Government has been that it does not collaborate with South Africa in the development of a nuclear weapon capability; nor in its civil nuclear power programme (see Appendix). However, it has refused to place a total ban on all nuclear relations with Scuth Africa; indeed the previous Government vetoed a proposal from the Africa group in the United Nations

-6 Security Council making such a ban mandatory. A "In view of the obvious dangers arising from South Africa's nuclear ambitions and the clear failure of existing controls to prevent South Africa from pursuing these ambitiens, we believe the Government-tshould take immediate steps to' stop all nlcear relations between thils coUntry and South Africa, including the recruitment and training of personnel, the atermination of the agreemazt between UKAEA and the South African Atomic Energy Board, the ending of imports of uranium from South Africa and Namibia and effective control to ensue that acomprehensive ban oi all nuclear relations with South Africa is strictly enforced.. The Government should also support mQe in the United Nations Security! ouncil to make -such a ban mandatory on all Member States. iv) Relations with-Bantustans The British Government hasrefused to recognise ne socalled 'independent'bantustans established by the s outh African regime. Indeed, on 15 December 1981, the President of the Security Council issued a-statement on behalf of the Council which, inter alia, "urges Governments of Member States to take effective measures within their constitutional framework to discourage all individuals, corporations and other institutions under their jurisdiction from having any dealings with the so-called 'independent' bantustans." In practice, however, a large number of individuals and corporations still maintain relations with the bantustans -7 and enter into agreements with Qrganisations and institutions established by or linked to the illegal administration of the bantustans. There are a number of measures which the Government could take immediately to secure the implementation of the United Nations Security Council's statement on the bantustans, for example!, a circular to all British companies, ad ising them not to enter into any dealings with any of the so-called bantustan authorities, an official statement advising British nationals not to take up employment or enter into any other relations with any of thi so-called bantustan authorities, all relevant British Government Iinistries to take s'iilar measures, e.g: in relation to liaison between edu ational institutions *in Britain and those in the bantustans etc. (b) Neasures to extend Government policy towards the total isolation of Apartheid South Africa i) United Nations Mandatory Economic Sanctions The Anti-Apartheid Movement cannot accept the contention of the Government that "further moves to isolate South Africa by sanctions or other ostracism would strengthen the opponents of reform and push SouthAfriea deeper into an attitude -f resistance to change". All historical experience since 1959, when the first appeals for the isolation of Sovth Africa were made, points ixn the very opposite direction. Specifically, the South African regime has only sought to ameliorate its policies when it has perceived a real threat of international action and this would clearly be even more the case if any

- 8- threat of action'was translated into practice. Nor do we believe that the Government's opposltion to sanctions can be justified on the grounds that they would be extremely damaging to Western economy. The consequences which may arise from our failure to apply sanctions could be much more damaging than any possible effects arising from the imposition of economic sanctions. Finally, the Government has no r tit ojustyuf its opposition to sanctions on the grounds that they would damage South Africa's neighbours. The F -Lit-Lne 3tates have repeatedly expressed their support. for sanctions and it is not they, but a small group of Western countries, which not only vote against sanctions in the General Assembly,: but veto sanctions in the Seeur ty Council. The Anti-Apartheid Movement believes thpt the British Government must; abandon the use of the veto to block the imposition of sanctions against South Africa and take advantage of this Year to review its policy, with the objective of pursuing a programme of action aimed at securing the total isolation of the apartheid regime. Conclusion The Internat'ienal Year of Mobilisation for Sanctions against South Africa is a unique initiative in the history of the United Nations. The fact that the British GoVernment is one of only eight countries which opposed the proclamation of this International Year indicates the extent to which Government policy is out of step with that of the international community as a whole. 'The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, endorsed the Commonwealth communique adopted in Melbourne in October 1981 which declared, inter alia, "their total and uniquivocal condemnation of apartheid as a crime against humanity" and that "it was the solemn and urgent duty of their govermeniooqusly to combat the evil of apartheid by the adoption of effective measures against it and to'asist thbse struggling to rid themselves of it" The Anti-Apartheid Movement believes that the proposals set out in this memorandum represent a serious approach by which the Government could honour its commitment to the Commonwealth and contribute to securing peace and justice for all the peoples of Southern Africa.

Appendix (a) British government policy on nuclear relations with South Africa "The Government does not collaborate in any way with South Africa in the development of a nuclear weapons capability. Nor do we suplply nuclear material, nuclear failities and equipment or related economic assistance directed towards this objective: and we. do not collaborate with South Africa in the development of its civil nuclear power programme. We continue to urge the South African Government to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty." South Africa: Minutes of Evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 13. 5. 81 (b) A press report "Dr. Clive Smitton has taken over as deputy manager cJ Hinkley A nuclear power station at Stogursey. He has succeeded Mr. Tony Gopsill, who is on temporary assignment in South Africa." Bristol Evening Post, 28. 8. 81