Heath in question-and-answer session at No. 10

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32439, 28 October 1970, Page 17

Heath in question-and-answer session at No. 10

fN.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) LONDON, Oct. 27. The leaders of the Commonwealth countries realised that Britain could not be taken for granted any longer, the British Prime Minister (Mr Heath) told a political writer of the “The Times,” David Wood, in an interview yesterday.

Mr Heath was interviewed at No. 10 Downing Street on the eve of the reassembly of Parliament to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Anthony Barber) deliver a statement on proposed cuts and charges after the Cabinet’s comprehensive review of public spending. Mr Heath said that the Chancellor’s statement would indicate “a resolve which is essential if we are to break out of the economic cycle.” Mr Heath spoke frankly about the attitude of Britain’s trade union leaders to the Industrial Relations Bill that is to be brought before the Commons for a second reading before Christmas. He said that he would have been astounded if the Trades Union Congress had welcomed the proposals. “But if you look behind their public statements,” he said, “the trade union movement is clearly in a dilemma. If history is any guide, the trade unions, as traditionally law-abiding bodies, will come to terms with the first comprehensive industrial relations act in British history. If a general strike were to occur, Mr Heath said, then the Government would face up to it; but he noted that Mr Victor Feather, the general secretary of the Trade Union Council, had consistently played down the idea I of a general strike. I Mr Heath went on to say ithat the Cabinet had not yet I reached a decision on derestricting the supply of arms

to South Africa, but he gave not the least indication that I a change in Government t policy was probable. i He emphasised Britain’s 1 right to follow independent c policies. “There is now a r growing realisation that Britain cannot be taken for granted any longer, and that ’ there are British interests and British concerns ... of I which they must take ac- ‘ count,” he said. On Europe, and the pros- ' pects of a successful negoti- 1 ation of Britain’s application ( to join the Common Market, 1 Mr Heath spoke with what ! could be called moderated ] enthusiasm. It was too early, he thought, to say when the negotiations would be con- 1 eluded, but, provided that l both sides recognised that ! they had a contribution to I make to success, it should be 1 possible to achieve an ac- 1 ceptable result. ’

QUESTION: Your visit to New York for the United Nations anniversary celebration created an early opportunity for you to meet a large number of heads of governments and foreign missions. What view do you take of the effectiveness of the United Nations in dealing with the world’s problems which make headline news every day?

ANSWER: Headlines are apt to be misleading. If you take last week’s headlines, for example, you might have thought that I talked about nothing in New York but arms for South Africa. The fact is that I met many world statesmen, and discussed with them virtually every major international problem. . . . When it comes to headline news, the United Nations is often seen, or thought, to be ineffective—sometimes because, by its very nature, it sets about a problem in the way.

wrong Sometimes, because of differences between the Great Powers, or for other perfectly valid reasons, it is inhibited from dealing with the problem at all, or, at best, obliquely or inadequately.

On other occasions, the United Nations has shown that it can be effective as a peace-maker and peacekeeper. It should now concentrate on improving its methods in both these fields. QUESTION: Your government is to give new directions to British foreign policy, including a more independent pursuit of strictly British interests in the world. Does this mean a lessening in the importance of some of our historic and sentimental associations with such groups as the Commonwealth and the United Nations? ANSWER: I think the phrase “historical and sentimental associations” implies a somewhat abstract relationship, based on nostalgia. Surely the world, generally, has become more integrated, mainly because

statesmen and politicians recognise that this is the only effective way to eliminate conflict and poverty. Britain has played her part in this evolution. These associations of nations—the Commonwealth and the United Nations—have a readily-defined function, and we will not lose sight of that In the case of the Com-

monwealth, there is a common heritage of administration and law, together with a common language. But we have something else in common—national independence. No country is expected to surrender its independence—its duty to make decisions in its own national interest. And the British Government’s responsibility is to insist from the outset that in our dealings with other countries we must have a clear and realistic assessment of Britain’s own interests. We want to avoid the danger of being swept along

by emotional pressures generated within these international organisations; and we have to avoid cliche-ridden declarations that bear no relation to the reality of what is going on in the world.

We have shown in recent weeks, and will continue to show, that within the Commonwealth and at the United Nations we shall consult other governments, and will always be ready to explain our policies—because it is important not only that people should know where we stand, but why we stand where we do.

But, in the end, these policies will be based on British decisions, and not on improvised responses to shortterm political pressures at home or overseas. Britain’s' foreign policy will be based less and less upon reaction to external events and more and more on a clearly defined long-term purpose.

QUESTION: I confess to some nostalgia, Prime Minister, and to feeling in some sense that British and Commonwealth interests are much less easily reconciled than they used to be. Wouldn’t you agree that this view is increasingly held among the British people? And, if so, that some of the assumptions underlying the Commonwealth relationship will be increasingly ’questioned, or devalued?

ANSWER: That is certainly the case. But in the talks I have been having recently with so many leaders of the Commonwealth countries, I found that there is now a growing realisation that Britain cannot be taken for granted any longer, and that there are British- interests and British concerns, as well as their own, of which they must take account. QUESTION: Do you return to London feeling that the Government’s position on supplying arms to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement is now better understood, in and outside the Commonwealth? ANSWER: I hope so, and I think so. When we first declared our intention of resuming the sale to South Africa of vessels and some other equipment which could

be used only for external maritime defence, it was obvious from the reactions of other heads of government that they did not fully understand the position.

This was why we said we wanted to talk, whenever possible, with Commonwealth leaders and others before any final decision was taken.

That is still the position. I, myself, have now discussed this issue with the representatives of 19 Commonwealth countries in the last few weeks. The govern-: ments of those countries are now better informed of our views. Most important, I think they are now convinced

of our abhorrence of apartheid and racialism, and accept the genuineness of our anxieties over Soviet Union intentions in the Indian Ocean. Some African countries take the view and their

policies are based on this—that armed conflict in southern Africa is inevitable. That, to us, is a policy of despair which is quite unacceptable. I believe that in the modern world, the peaceful pressures of trade, investment and the spread of information can be more effective in changing a policy of repression than the threat or use of force. QUESTION: Is a decision

■ on arms supply imminent? ■ Or will it more likely come ■ after the Commonwealth i Conference? i ANSWER: The Cabinet has yet to decide. After reaching > a decision, it will make an : announcement.

QUESTION: I know the depth of your commitment, Prime Minister, to Britain’s future in Europe. These are early days in the negotiations. How do you read the prospects at the present time? What do you regard as Britain’s sticking points—or, if. you prefer it, what will be the cardinal issues for Britain? ANSWER: The negotiations have got off to a quick, sen-

sible start. Our eventual decision will follow from an over-all assessment of the results of the negotiations. But, obviously, the main problems will be in the agricultural field—the contribution the Community will seek from us towards its budgetary expenditure, Commonwealth sugar exports, the special position of New Zealand, and some other Commonwealth issues. None of these problems is insuperable. The object of the negotiations is to resolve them. If we are successful we shall get rid of the senseless economic division of Western Europe that has sapped the political influence of Europe for years.