London Talks Fail to Agree on Sanctions : But Thatcher Says Britain Will Impose Mild S. Africa Curbs

A meeting of seven Commonwealth leaders broke up prematurely Monday after failing to agree on a unified plan of action to force South Africa to dismantle its system of apartheid.

At the end of the second day of the scheduled three-day meeting here, six of the leaders gave up attempts to get British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to go along with a package of tough economic sanctions against Pretoria.

Instead, the six--the prime ministers of India, Australia, Canada, Zimbabwe and the Bahamas plus Zambia’s President Kenneth D. Kaunda--issued their own agreed list of 11 specific sanctions and an expression of regret and concern that Britain failed to go along with the measures.

Their measures included a ban on air links with South Africa, a ban on the import of agricultural products, a ban on all new bank loans to South Africa and the withdrawal of all consular facilities for South Africans in their own countries.

3 Limited Measures

In an attempt to break the deadlocked meeting, Thatcher had earlier offered to support three limited measures as “a mark of disapproval against apartheid,” but these did not go far enough for the other leaders.

Britain, she said, would implement immediate voluntary bans on new investment in South Africa and on the advertising of South African tourism.

Thatcher also agreed to back a proposed European Communities ban on the import of South African coal, iron and steel.

The conference chairman, Bahamian Prime Minister Lynden O. Pindling, said the sanctions agreed upon by the six would be recommended to the other 42 member nations of the Commonwealth for immediate implementation.

Bid for Broader Support

The five-page communique issued by the heads of government also said efforts would be made to persuade “the wider international community” to adopt them urgently.

Pindling said that if the sanctions package failed “in a reasonable time” to push Pretoria toward ending apartheid, the six would meet again at an unspecified future date to consider further measures against South Africa.

Attending the meeting in addition to Thatcher, Kaunda and Pindling were Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney of Canada, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Rajiv Gandhi of India and Bob Hawke of Australia.

At a news conference after the meeting, Commonwealth Secretary General Shridath Ramphal said the six leaders have chosen to protect the Commonwealth’s credibility in the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa at the expense of a unified plan of action.

Despite the disagreement, however, the conference remained free of public recriminations, and there were no moves to carry out threats mentioned by some leaders of countersanctions against Britain if Thatcher failed to go along with a comprehensive package.

“There was more a feeling of sadness than anger,” noted one Commonwealth source who had attended the sessions.

Those leaders who met reporters after the communique was issued shortly before midnight attempted to stress the points of agreement among the seven leaders rather than differences over sanctions.

All seven said they were “profoundly disappointed” at the lack of movement on the part of the Pretoria government toward dismantling apartheid or taking steps that might create the climate of a peaceful dialogue with black nationalist groups.

At the Commonwealth summit conference last October in the Bahamas, all 49 leaders agreed to implement nine specific sanctions, dispatched a so-called Eminent Persons Group on a diplomatic mission to South Africa to search for ways to stimulate a dialogue and agreed to consider a list of eight more sanctions if no adequate progress had been made toward ending apartheid.

Monday’s communique noted that all seven agreed that “since our meeting in Nassau, there has not been the adequate concrete progress that we looked for there. Indeed, the situation has deteriorated.”

Common, Historic Bond

The 49 Commonwealth countries are bound only by the common bond of historic ties to the British Empire, but as the largest grouping of states outside the United Nations, any agreed positions carry political weight.

But the failure to persuade Britain to endorse the package will severely diminish their impact. Britain is the only member state with significant trade and investment links with South Africa.

In fact, Thatcher argued that Britain’s major economic relationship with South Africa would mean that the practical effect of the three limited measures she has endorsed would be greater than the larger package agreed upon by the six.

Britain is the largest single investor in South Africa as well as a leading trading partner.

During the course of Monday’s meeting, Thatcher reaffirmed her opposition to general comprehensive sanctions, and she expressed little enthusiasm for the limited measures she did back.

“I’m very reluctant about the measures we’ve taken,” she said, noting as an example that the ban on coal would result in the unemployment of black miners.

Earlier, a British source said she had agreed to the measures more in the hope of preserving Commonwealth solidarity on the South African issue than out of any conviction they might work.

“We’re profoundly unconvinced about the effectiveness of economic measures against South Africa,” the source said.

Thatcher’s refusal to back the more comprehensive package is likely to have at least some influence on Reagan Administration action on South Africa.

The President is currently under pressure from Congress to implement a tougher package of sanctions and has expressed an interest in coordinating his South Africa policies with Britain and other Western industrial countries.

At her own news conference, Thatcher reiterated her opposition to apartheid as well as her well-known belief that history has proven economic sanctions don’t bring about the desired political change.

“But it became perfectly clear that other Commonwealth colleagues were bent on further action in the genuine belief that only this will move President (Pieter W.) Botha,” she said.

In the final communique, the six leaders described the sanctions package as “a moral and political imperative to which a positive response can no longer be deferred.”

Mulroney disputed the contention that the absence of British involvement in the larger package lessens its impact.

“There is little solace in this document for Pretoria,” he said.

He estimated that the ban on agricultural trade would cost Canada about $75 million.

“It will take a real bite,” he said.

Although British officials presented their more limited measures as a significant compromise, they appear to be largely empty gestures.

Britain last October agreed to a Commonwealth ban on government investments, and new commercial investment has slowed to a trickle.