Commonwealth Dissent May Sway Thatcher

Growing dissatisfaction within the Commonwealth and the possibility of a confrontation with Queen Elizabeth II have softened Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa.

So far, Thatcher’s shift is more one of emphasis than substance--contingency plans for limited sanctions are under discussion--but even that is considered significant. It also comes at a time when the Reagan Administration is reviewing its policy on South Africa.

British Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe met with President Reagan and Secretary of State George P. Shultz in Washington on Friday, and British officials here said the two governments are interested “in some form of unity of movement.”

Games Boycott Grows

Statements earlier in the week by Thatcher and Howe, hinting at possible action against South Africa, came against the backdrop of a snowballing boycott of the Commonwealth Games, scheduled to begin Thursday in Edinburgh, Scotland, and the lukewarm reception Howe received on a visit to the so-called front-line African states to argue the case against broad economic sanctions.

Friday’s decision by Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago to boycott the Edinburgh games unless Britain moves to impose sanctions has added to the growing pressure on Thatcher. Nine other countries from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean had already announced that they will stay away from the games.

Britain’s position as South Africa’s biggest investor and principal trading partner makes its position on sanctions crucial.

Until now, Thatcher, while underscoring British opposition to apartheid, has argued against comprehensive economic sanctions on the grounds that history has shown them to be ineffective. Further, she has said, sanctions would impose the greatest suffering on poor blacks, the group that advocates of sanctions seek to help.

“I don’t believe that punitive economic sanctions will bring about internal change,” she said in a recent interview.

Earlier this week, however, the tone of her government’s statements changed perceptibly and placed emphasis for the first time on factors other than the ineffectiveness and immorality of sanctions.

Speaking Wednesday in the House of Commons, Howe admitted that if his personal diplomatic effort fails to create a climate for negotiations between the South African government and black community leaders, additional steps will be needed.

“If the mission does not procure tangible, substantial progress in South Africa, I would regard agreement on some further measures as likely to be necessary,” he said.

The next day, Thatcher told the Commons that contingency plans were under way to implement further limited sanctions against South Africa if Howe’s diplomatic mission fails.

Howe met earlier this month with leaders of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique and is scheduled to meet South African President Pieter W. Botha in Pretoria on Wednesday.

Thatcher has never rejected the possibility that limited measures against South Africa might someday be necessary. But she has talked of such steps infrequently and with obvious reluctance.

Britain already has limited sanctions in place against South Africa and has committed itself to a European Community declaration calling for a ban on new investment and on the importation of South African gold coins, coal, iron and steel.

The sudden emphasis on the prospect of more sanctions is viewed here as a significant sign of mounting pressure on Thatcher for more action. The nature of this pressure, not only from the Commonwealth but including the queen’s well-known position on the question, is subtle, largely out of the public eye, and extremely difficult even for students of British politics to assess.

On the surface, a boycott of the Commonwealth Games and even the threat by some black African leaders to pull out of the Commonwealth would seem to be hollow, symbolic gestures. Britain derives no obvious, tangible benefit from the Commonwealth, which simply brings Britain together with 48 countries that were once colonies in the British Empire.

Trade concessions within the Commonwealth ended in the early 1970s, with Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community. Aside from a meeting of heads of state every two years to discuss global issues, the Commonwealth has few political functions.

Still, it is the largest grouping of nations outside the United Nations, and it provides a unique, unusually strong bond for an industrialized Western country with the Third World.

The Guardian newspaper said in an editorial the other day: “The Commonwealth isn’t a grouping like the EEC or Comecon (the Eastern economic bloc), but it is a forum which places black and white, Third World and First World, side by side on a basis of some comradeship and shared experience. That is not for a second to be undervalued.”

The Commonwealth has also helped fill the void of a lost empire and stands as a symbol that, for the most part, Britain and its colonies parted as friends. The fact that friendship and good will are the basis of the Commonwealth gives political impact to the differences over South Africa.

The queen’s well-known commitment to Commonwealth unity adds an unknown dimension to the pressure on Thatcher. Nurturing harmony in the Commonwealth has been a centerpiece of the queen’s 34-year reign and one of the few political issues on which she is believed to hold strong views.

She has visited all the other 48 member countries, she has developed long-term friendships with African leaders such as Zambia’s President Kenneth D. Kaunda, she is officially acknowledged as head of the Commonwealth and recognized as the constitutional monarch of 18 of the member states.

As Britain’s constitutional monarch, the queen has little apparent power. She cannot speak out publicly against the government; she can only advise and caution and be consulted.

What takes place at the queen’s weekly meeting with the prime minister is strictly confidential. In theory, the exchanges between the prime minister and the sovereign are not made known even to members of the Cabinet.

But in recent days there have been hints, apparently dropped by palace advisers to at least one senior Cabinet minister, that suggest royal displeasure with Thatcher’s hard line.

A direct public confrontation is considered highly unlikely, but any impression that Thatcher is trying to bulldoze the queen could quickly become an uncomfortable political liability for a prime minister whose Conservative Party is devoted to the monarchy.

In one of the rare instances where her role has been documented, the queen in 1979 helped shape a compromise that enabled Rhodesia to make the peaceful transition to independent Zimbabwe. Many think she could play a similar role in the current crisis.

“She will do what she’s always done,” said James Eberle, director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. “She’ll encourage compromise within the Commonwealth.”