Examination of witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR PETER
HAIN and MS
FRANCES MACLEOD
Chairman
1. Minister, we are pleased that you responded
to our invitation to come before us because of the crisis in Zimbabwe.
We welcome you and your colleagues here. We know that today is
the 20th anniversary of the independence of Zimbabwe and recognise
that the people of Zimbabwe have very little to celebrate on this
day, given the crisis politically, economically, and, of course,
in our bilateral relations, which pains many of us, particularly
yourself obviously, who have been closely associated with liberation
in Africa over the years. What would be helpful for the Committee
is first, if you could begin by giving us an assessment of the
current situation. You have helpfully circulated a statement.
If you could summarise the very key points of that and give us
an assessment of the current position as a platform for questions.
(Mr Hain) Thank you very much, Chairman. First of
all, I welcome the opportunity to address you because the situation
is increasingly grave. Only within the last hour I have learnt
that another farmer has been killed. I have instructed our High
Commissioner in Harare to protest in the strongest possible terms
at the fact that apparently an ambulance, which sought to come
to his aid while he was still alive, was blocked from getting
through by war veterans with the police standing by. The situation
is very serious indeed. It is the case that Britain, of course,
is the oldest friend of Zimbabwe. Last week both Robin Cook, the
Foreign Secretary, and I spoke to Morgan Tsvangirai, the Leader
of the Movement for Democratic Change. I met one of his senior
colleagues and Robin Cook also spoke to the President of the Commercial
Farmers Union. The messages that we are getting from the people
of Zimbabwe is that the British Government should continue to
have dialogue with the Zimbabwe Government and apply what pressure
we can through international consensus. Since losing the referendum,
President Mugabe has sought to divert attention from the growing
internal opposition by trying to present Britain as his opponent
in the coming election which, of course, we are not. The international
community, including the United States, the Commonwealth and African
states, share our concerns at the deteriorating situation. Only
last Monday, Britain's policy was unanimously backed by our European
Union partners. On Sunday, both the Foreign Secretary and I spoke
to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and he told us that his Foreign
Minister Lamido was due to arrive in Harare today. We are all
united in urging the Government of Zimbabwe to end the lawlessness
and stop the violence, much of it officially incited. The killing
over the weekend of a white farmer and the savage beating of his
colleagues was tragic. So, of course, is the death within the
last few hours of another farmer. Equally disturbing, and I will
just focus briefly on this, was the killing, apparently by Government
supporters, of two Opposition members driving in an Opposition
vehicle. Eight members of the Opposition have been killed in the
last two weeks and more than 100 hospitalised. Opposition leaders
are now in fear of assassination, so it is absolutely vital that
we continue to seek opportunities for constructive dialogue. We
cannot have dialogue when the hand of friendship is rejected.
Therefore, we welcome President Mugabe's agreement to send a delegation
to London, probably next week. We agree with the people of Zimbabwe
that elections should be held within the time allowed by the constitution
and that they should be free and fair. We have already secured
agreement from our EU partners to offer international monitors
and we are discussing the same issue with the Commonwealth. We
hope that President Mugabe will accept this offer. I am pleased
that yesterday the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament was reported
as saying that he unreservedly welcomed foreign observers. Britain
stands ready with our international partners to support a team
of election monitors, just we have done during the past year,
for example, in South Africa and Mozambique. The very future of
Zimbabwe depends on the elections being free and fair. Britain
with not interfere in these elections. The destiny of Zimbabwe
lies in the hands of its own people. I hope that Zimbabwe will
be transformed from its present serious condition into a powerhouse
in Africa for economic prosperity, good governance, and respect
for human rights. If new policies emerge to achieve that, Zimbabwe
will find in Britain not just an old friend but a new partner.
2. I am obliged. Minister, last week when President
Mugabe was in Cuba, Vice Present Msika urged the squatters to
end their occupation. Now you are saying that the Speaker is prepared
to welcome international observers to the elections. Has there
been anything positive from President Mugabe?
(Mr Hain) In respect of international observers?
3. In respect of international observers, in
respect of urging restraint on the squatters, and generally seeking
to help to ease the situation.
(Mr Hain) President Mugabe has apparently told foreign
African leaders, colleagues of his, that he might be willing to
accept Commonwealth observers. We will have to see what transpires.
Of course, he met leaders of the Commercial Farming Union last
night, (yesterday), and they had a good meeting and constructive
talks. However, there has been a problem throughout these past
weeks about the question of the squatting. On the other hand,
the Vice President has been very clear.
4. The Vice President does not rule, with respect.
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
5. Has there been anything at all positive or
constructive, in attempting to lessen the crisis, from President
Mugabe?
(Mr Hain) The meeting yesterday with the farmers appeared
to reduce the tension, certainly the farmers' leaders thought
so. I cannot, however, say that President Mugabe has displayed
the leadership that he ought to have done to ensure that the law
was enforced, to ensure that the violence was ended. Indeed, many
of his statements have appeared to incite an escalation of the
problem in contrast to the Vice President who, in a conversation
with me over the phone and in public statements, has said that
the law should be upheld. Of course, the President is now in a
position, as are many of his Ministers, of defying not just the
rule of law in a general sense but a decision of his own high
court, which is a very serious matter.
6. He does this, notwithstanding there is a
real danger of a crisis of confidence. 40 per cent of the export
earnings of Zimbabwe come from commercial farmers, mainly tobacco.
If they default on their bank loans, there will be a further financial
crisis. This could affect, in terms of morale, not only inward
investment but it could lead to an exodus of trained people both
in Zimbabwe and, presumably, the infection could spread to neighbouring
countries too.
(Mr Hain) I think you are absolutely right. This is
an issue not just of serious crisis for Zimbabwe but for the entire
region. For example, the Malawians tell us that many, many (perhaps
millions) of their citizens are actually working on the farms
as farm labourers. If we saw the pictures on television yesterday
of the white farmers' farmsteads abandoned now with its farm workers'
homes burnt, its tobacco crops rotting under canvass or some other
protection, Zimbabwe's whole economy depends critically on the
successful agricultural sector and its foreign exchange reserves,
which are virtually empty, on successful exports of tobacco and
agricultural produce. So this is a situation which is not only
creating internal instability but a real crisis of huge economic
proportions for the whole country and the region.
7. Given the further tragedy of the death of
a farmer, and the possible effects on investment in South Africa
itself, are you surprised that the political leadership in South
Africa has not stirred itself more?
(Mr Hain) President Mbeki did visit Harare some weeks
ago and he plans another visit in the near future. I know from
my own discussions with leadership at the top level of the neighbouring
countries—and indeed with President Obasanjo of Nigeria,
and the discussion that the Foreign Secretary had with the Secretary
General of the Organisation of African Unity—that all African
countries share our concerns completely and are seeking to bring
what influence they can.
Sir Peter Emery
8. There is no reason why you should know, but
I was one of the Members of the House that was asked by the Prime
Minister to monitor the first elections, the last election in
South Rhodesia and the election by which President Mugabe came
to power and Zimbabwe was, in fact, created. I saw the discipline
of those people who are the remains of the war veterans. Can you
really believe that they are taking this action without the approval
of the President?
(Mr Hain) No.
9. So that means to say that we must realise
that Mugabe is in the dock, accused of really taking no action
to stop this, and having been willing to allow it to happen?
(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, I think it is quite clear that
one of the reasons for the illegal farm invasions in the first
place, were acts of orchestration from the very highest level
of the ruling Zanu/PF party. That could not have happened, given
the way Zimbabwe is governed, without the President's authority.
Indeed, one of the regrettable features about this deteriorating
situation is that he, at least until yesterday, when he met the
leaders of the Commercial Farmers Union, has not been prepared
to use his full authority as President to stop this lawlessness
and stop the violence which has now resulted in deaths.
10. What steps have you taken to see what action
the United Nations could take, or whether Kofi Annan could use
his influence on the President?
(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, what we have done from the beginning,
in conversations that I have had personally with Zimbabwe Ministers,
and that the Foreign Secretary had with President Mugabe had in
Cairo only two weeks ago, in the conversations we have had with
the Commonwealth, with the Organisation of African Union neighbouring
African states, and discussions which have occurred at the United
Nations in New York through our permanent representative, what
we have sought to do consistently is to say that this is not in
the interests of Zimbabwean people. President Mugabe has sought
to present the current situation as if Britain is the enemy. Britain
is a long standing friend. He must not be allowed to present it
in that fashion. It is very important that all the statements
that Members of Parliament make, if I may say so, bear that in
mind. That we will not fall into his trap of seeking to present
this crisis as if it is one of Zimbabwe versus Britain, when all
of our international colleagues share our concerns.
11. I understand that. But if we are really
friends of the Zimbabwean people, we must have this brought to
an end as soon as possible.
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
12. Because of the confrontation that Mugabe
is trying to create between himself and Britain generally, ought
we not to be trying, as Lord Carrington suggested, to help other
Africans—I use Kofi Annan as a very good example—to
argue the case of the law and the case of the people of Zimbabwe
rather than Britain alone. We should be using every force outside
ourselves to try to bring influence, and particularly Africans,
to bring influence on him.
(Mr Hain) That is precisely why I very much welcome
the visits to Zimbabwe by the Nigerian Foreign Minister; a visit
which followed conversations that the Foreign Secretary and I
had with President Obasanjo on Sunday; in turn, following President
Obasanjo's convening of the meeting between the Foreign Secretary
and President Mugabe. I agree with you completely. That is precisely
what we have been seeking to do. In the end this is a problem,
which is an African problem, needing an African solution.
13. Kofi Annan has been used to try and bring
some influence?
(Mr Hain) I do not want to go into what might or might
not be happening at the United Nations. I think the focus should
be on African countries at the present time.
Mr Rowlands
14. I too was an observer at the 1980 independence.
We knew Mr Mugabe very well in the 1970s and it is very sad to
see the arrogance of someone who has been in power for too long.
Is it a one man Government? Is there any other body in the Government
who can stand up and speak to Mr Mugabe and say, "Look, this
is what you are doing to your country"?
(Mr Hain) Mr Rowlands, I appreciate your old expert
knowledge and involvement in this matter, but I do not want us
to personalise this crisis because that is exactly what has allowed
the President to inflame an already serious situation. So to answer
your question directly, President Mugabe is in charge of the country,
quite clearly. There are, however, alternative voices, both within
his Government and within his own party, let alone within the
Opposition, which is now a stronger opposition than Zimbabwe has
had since independence.
15. When you said you did not want to personalise
it, some of your own language has been pretty strong stuff. "Intemperate",
"irrational", "lifting two fingers to the courts".
These are the phrases you have used in denunciation, not just
of the Government but President Mugabe himself. Therefore, I do
not quite understand your response to my first question. You,
yourself, have lead the denunciation of his behaviour.
(Mr Hain) I have been very robust, as has the Foreign
Secretary. You were quite right to quote those. I think it is
important that we were robust from the beginning. It is important
that no double standards are shown when black African leaders
abuse human rights, provoke policies which cause violence and
now deaths. That is no different from the old dictatorship of
Ian Smith and the racist repression which he was responsible for.
It is important that we do not have double standards, which is
why I have been robust. But it is very important now that instead
of knee-jerk gestures, which I do not suggest you are asking for
but have come from some Opposition figures outside this Committee,
instead we have measured messages. This is because we do not want
the situation to be inflamed further.
16. That implies that influence can help and
assist. How is our access to the President these days? For example,
has our High Commissioner got direct access to the President?
Has he managed to meet him in the last three or four weeks as
this crisis unfolded? Is there a personal relationship between
the High Commissioner and the President or is that fractured too?
(Mr Hain) He has not been able to meet the President
in recent times. I, myself, met the President on 29 October in
London. Unfortunately, the following day there was a demonstration
by the Gay Rights Campaign, by Peter Tatchell, which caused a
further series of outbursts from the President. I met him again
in January in the margins of the New York Security Council. I
have had regular conversations with Zimbabwe Ministers but I cannot
say, other than the meeting which was held under the chairmanship
of President Obasanjo in Cairo, that we can claim a strong personal
basis for dialogue with the President. That is regrettable.
17. May I seek clarification as to what emerged
from the Cairo meeting because I heard slightly conflicting sounds
coming from it. The build-up to that meeting was one of forthright
denunciation of the kind I described. You and the Foreign Secretary
made those denunciations. Then following that meeting there seemed
to be an almost act of reconciliation between Mr Mugabe and ourselves,
that we would do something further on land reform, as long as
he exercised his influence. In those meetings was there a clear
understanding of what President Mugabe was going to do to try
to calm the situation, and how we would then respond to that calming
or not? It seems that since the Cairo meeting things have got
worse, not better.
(Mr Hain) The importance of the Cairo meeting was
to try to establish a basis for dialogue. I cannot claim that
the results showed that it was a roaring success. Nor did we anticipate
that the situation would necessarily change dramatically as a
result of one albeit lengthy conversation. But the concrete things
that came out of that were President Mugabe's acceptance of an
invitation from the Foreign Secretary to send a senior delegation
to visit us in London and to discuss land reform, the economic
crisis, the deteriorating lawlessness, the violence, and all these
other problems which are besetting the country, so that was one
concrete outcome. There was a discussion. There was a dialogue.
That is to be welcomed. I should also just say very briefly that
when I have had private discussions with our colleagues in the
United States, with my opposite numbers in Europe, with senior
members of African Governments, they too have had difficulty in
establishing a constructive dialogue with President Mugabe. This
has been the heart of the problem in many respects.
Dr Starkey
18. One of the big issues behind all of this
is land reform. May I ask a few questions about land reform in
Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary issued a statement in April saying
that: "Britain is prepared to help fund a land reform programme
which is within the rule of law ... [and] to support reform, provided
it genuinely addresses the problem of rural poverty." What
progress has there actually been so far in Zimbabwe since independence
on real land reform, that is, land reform which addresses the
problem of rural poverty?
(Mr Hain) In the beginning, in the 1980s, there was
some progress on that. During the period the previous Government
supplied some £44 million worth of funding to support it.
However, it became increasingly obvious that the land reform programme
was not achieving its objective which, as you quite rightly stress,
was to tackle rural poverty and redress the historic imbalance
that had been left over from both colonialism and the racist white
minority rule of Ian Smith, of a massive unfairness in the distribution
of land. I think we should all acknowledge that there is and was
that legacy. But the land reform programme that was being pursued
by that Government was not really addressing these matters, so
we withdraw our support for it.
19. What date would that be? That you withdrew
support? Roughly.
(Mr Hain) From recollection, round about 1988. Of
course, it is a matter, for which the Secretary of State for International
Development is responsible. I will happily answer in general terms.
I would like to add one or two points. She could, no doubt, supply
you with any more detailed evidence in writing if you needed it.
There was then a land conference called in 1988 to try and address
this matter—donor countries and the Zimbabwe Government
and non-governmental organisations—where it was clear it
was going off the rails. Unfortunately, in the last two years,
as the programme has been progressed—without British support,
I might add, because we could not support it—around half
the properties dispersed have gone to friends of the Government;
some places to senior officials, retired officials. Very little
of it, if any, is farmed; so the problems of rural poverty have
not been addressed. The problems of landless citizens have not
been addressed by that land distribution. In addition, the country
has lost a much needed source of efficient farming production.
|
