Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 37)
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2001
BARONESS AMOS
AND MR
ANDREW POCOCK
20. Do you think that targeted sanctions will
be proposed at the December General Affairs Council?
(Baroness Amos) I think that when the Secretary of
State gave evidence to the Committee last week he said that he
thought it was important that we did not speculate about the possibilities
of the end of the Article 96 process. That process has given 75
days for dialogue between the European Union and the Government
of Zimbabwe. There is a meeting scheduled for I think the 19 December
between the European Union and the Government of Zimbabwe as the
first part of that dialogue process. I think it is very, very
important that we actually await the outcome of that meeting.
Dialogue failed under Article 8 which was why we moved to Article
96. What Article 96 allows is for that 75 day period and at the
end of that period, depending on the outcome of the dialogue process,
for the European Union then to consider and—I quote—"appropriate
measures". So at the December meeting I think it is very,
very important that we see what the outcome of that meeting is
between the EU and the Government of Zimbabwe.
21. Chairman, with your permission, can I press
you further on the sanctions issue. If the EU and, say, the US
agree on smart sanctions surely they would have no effect whatsoever
unless SADC also impose those sanctions. Do you think there is
any chance that SADC will adopt sanctions should the elections
go badly wrong?
(Baroness Amos) First of all, we have made it clear
that we would not in any way consider economic sanctions against
Zimbabwe because of the dire impact this would have on the people
of Zimbabwe.
22. Which is why I say smart sanctions.
(Baroness Amos) I am now going to come to your point
about smart sanctions or targeted sanctions. Individual members
of SADC have expressed a concern about the possibility of sanctions,
be they economic or smart or targeted sanctions. Since the United
States Act went through, towards the end of last week, those concerns
have been expressed even more strongly. We would have to work
extremely hard with our SADC partners if targeted or smart sanctions
were considered to be an appropriate part of the agenda.
Chairman
23. In response to Mr Hamilton, Minister, you
said "We will have to await the outcome of the European Union
meeting" as if we are mere passive observers on that meeting.
We shall be full participants and that meeting will take place
within the next week. So will we be passive spectators or will
we argue for targeted sanctions at that meeting? What line will
the Government take?
(Baroness Amos) I would really like the Committee
to understand the distinction that I am making. We are now in
the process of Article 96 dialogue which is a process between
the European Union and the Government of Zimbabwe. It would be
inappropriate in the meeting of 19 December on Zimbabwe, which
is the first meeting between the European Union and the Government
of Zimbabwe, for the European Union side to be saying to the Government
of Zimbabwe "We are going to be moving to smart or targeted
sanctions" because that meeting is the first part of the
dialogue process which is due to be completed towards the end
of January. Independently of that, and dependent on the outcome
of that dialogue process, the European Union will consider what
appropriate measures it should take as a result of what happens
through that dialogue process. That is why I am making the distinction
between the initial meeting as part of that dialogue process between
the Government of Zimbabwe and the European Union and the action
that the European Union might choose to take as a result of the
outcome of that dialogue press. Might I just answer, Chairman,
your question about us being passive observers?
24. Yes?
(Baroness Amos) We are not passive observers in this
process. What happened when the European Union made the decision
to move to Article 96 was that concerns were being expressed by
a number of European Union countries about the situation in Zimbabwe
reflecting the concerns which we have as the British Government.
This is why the thread that I think has been an important part
of what I have been saying throughout this morning is that this
is not just the British concern, it is international concern about
the situation in Zimbabwe, not just in the European Union but
in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. What the Government of Zimbabwe
has consistently tried to do and has said publicly is that the
British Government are the ones who are going around in international
fora and making the European Union or the Commonwealth or indeed
SADC do these things which is a great disservice to the independence
of those countries and the independence of those institutions.
25. We obviously cannot make our partners, whether
in the European Union or in the Commonwealth do certain things
but we must have certain things of our own. Are we or are we not
in principle in favour of targeted sanctions?
(Baroness Amos) What we are in favour of is looking
critically at the situation at every point and as a result of
the evidence we have of what is happening on the ground in Zimbabwe
to then make decisions within the European context or with our
Commonwealth partners. So we have not ruled out any part of the
strategy, including the possibility of looking at targeted sanctions,
but I am not able to say to the Committee today that the British
Government have made a decision that this is what we should do.
There are an array of possibilities in terms of where the international
community go next. The United States, through passing their legislation,
have made it possible for them as an administration to move to
the point of targeted sanctions but with a piece of legislation
that is very much focused on incentives for the Government of
Zimbabwe if they take the right decisions. We will, of course,
discuss these matters with our European Union partners and with
our Commonwealth partners because what is important to us is that
the international support which exists in relation to the situation
in Zimbabwe in terms of trying to ensure that the Government of
Zimbabwe takes its responsibilities very seriously, that international
support and consensus is maintained.
Mr Olner
26. Minister, given that on 4 December the International
Herald Tribune reported an "Anti-Mugabe Chorus"
from South African leaders, including the presidents of Botswana
and South Africa, what actions do you think that SADC have taken,
to date, that have affected the behaviour of the Mugabe regime?
Have words of condemnation meant anything to him?
(Baroness Amos) I think that the one key thing that
will have an impact on the Government of Zimbabwe is the reaction
of its nearest neighbours to what is happening in Zimbabwe. On
11 and 12 September SADC Heads of State visited Zimbabwe and saw
a number of key stakeholders and they expressed at that point
deep concern about the situation in Zimbabwe and, in addition,
pressed the Government of Zimbabwe to enter into dialogue not
only with the opposition but with other stakeholders because there
was a strong feeling from SADC leaders that things would not improve
in Zimbabwe if there were not greater dialogue between key stakeholders,
like the Commercial Farmers' Union, like members of the opposition,
like the Government of Zimbabwe. What we now have is a follow-up
mission from SADC foreign ministers and others which finished
yesterday and those members of SADC who visited Zimbabwe are now
going to give a report to President Chissano and President Muluzi
about what they saw and what they found. As a result of that I
think that SADC will then make some decisions about their own
next steps. I know that some of the things that they have themselves
been looking at include the election process.
27. Is there any evidence so far, Minister,
that those wise words have been listened to? Have they made any
impression whatsoever?
(Baroness Amos) I think that they have made an impression
on the Government of Zimbabwe. We know that there are some differences
in the government about the steps that should be taken next, but
I think the difficulty for us is that the public statements which
are made by the Government of Zimbabwe, by President Mugabe, by
the Information Minister, for example, and by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs continue to be extremely robust. Members of the
Committee will know when President Mbeki made some very strong
statements about what is happening in Zimbabwe initially there
was a very negative response from the Government of Zimbabwe and
an implication that President Mbeki was somehow speaking as a
result of pressure from the British Government. I think that these
statements are having an impact but it is very hard for us to
judge the extent of that impact because the public statements
continue to be so robust. What I would like to say to the Committee
is that I think the fact that SADC leaders have actually spoken
out, and spoken out publicly, about their concerns is a very,
very important step because the Committee will know that historically
when things are considered either within the context of the OAU
or within any of the regional organisations within Africa, what
has tended to happen is that very strong things have been said
in private but not in public. So the fact that there have been
public statements from SADC leaders about their concerns about
what is happening in Zimbabwe is a very, very important step indeed.
28. Just to change direction a little, Minister,
picking up on something you said earlier in your evidence when
you talked about the value of the rand. Could I ask if the British
Government is providing any economic assistance at all to Zimbabwe's
neighbours?
(Baroness Amos) It does depend on what you mean by
"economic assistance". We have development programmes
with a number of neighbouring countries to Zimbabwe. We have a
big development programme with South Africa, some of which includes
work on public service reform, for example, and on enterprise
development.
29. Have they been looked at again in view of
the crisis that Zimbabwe is causing in Southern Africa?
(Baroness Amos) Our development programmes are constantly
being reviewed. When we agree a programme it is done on the basis
of an agreed country strategy paper which is developed following
consultations not only with government but also with key stakeholders
where we do an analysis of the economic and political situation
in country, we come to an agreement about the areas that we would
want to work in and support. We then devise programmes on the
basis of that and each of those programmes has a built in way
of reviewing those programmes on an ongoing basis. Of course,
our staff in countries like Malawi, South Africa and Mozambique,
where we continue to have development programmes with those countries,
will be talking to those governments on an ongoing basis. The
other thing I would want to say to the Committee is this is also
having an impact on our trading with the region. Only this morning
I was having a meeting with representatives of a number of British
businesses with interests in Southern Africa who were themselves
expressing concern about the impact of the situation in Zimbabwe
on the economies of neighbouring countries.
Chairman
30. A question on land reform before Sir John
comes to the question of the media. Since the Lancaster House
Agreement 20 years ago we have given £500 million in bilateral
aid to Zimbabwe, £40 million in aid for land reform. We now
understand that it is reported that there is a new form of land
agreement under which the Government of Zimbabwe will give 99
year leases with an option to buy and that these leases are not
being given to the landless poor but to friends and relations,
to senior politicians and senior officials, which clearly is wholly
counter to what the UNDP international observers seek to do. What
is the Government's response to this new partisan policy of land
redistribution within Zimbabwe?
(Baroness Amos) Can I first of all clarify the figures.
We have given over £500 million in financial aid. We have
given 44 million for land. In fact, it was 47 million but three
million of that 47 million was returned to us, it was not actually
used. What we have said consistently since Lancaster House is
that there is an urgent need for land reform in Zimbabwe. We want
a land reform programme that is transparent, fair and equitable.
After the money was returned to us and after there was a kind
of hiatus in the land reform process, there was a Land Reform
Conference in 1998 which reached agreement on the principles for
land reform in Zimbabwe. We signed up to the outcome of that conference
but the following year the Government instituted the fast track
programme, despite having agreed at the 1998 Conference to the
principles of transparency and so on. So we have consistently
said that we want to see a land reform programme, and we would
support a land reform programme, which adhered to the principles
which were agreed in 1998 and which were reaffirmed by the UNDP
in a letter to the Government of Zimbabwe.
31. But we have said that there was the 1998
Agreement, there was the Abuja Agreement on 6 September, which
has not been implemented. It is clear that whatever we say nothing
positive has been done and, indeed, according to this latest report
about the 99 year leases, the whole trend is in the opposite direction.
(Baroness Amos) Can I say that Abuja had two parts
to it. It had the commitments which were made by the Government
of Zimbabwe and there were also commitments which were made by
the British Government with respect to land reform. We made two
commitments. One, that if the Government of Zimbabwe met its commitments
under the Abuja Agreement with respect to land reform, which included
a commitment to a just, fair and sustainable land reform process
as agreed by UNDP, and if the rule of law was restored and if
there was a commitment to human rights, democratic principles
of free press and so on, we would consider not only supporting
that land reform process but we would also work to get other donors
to give money to support that land reform programme. So our support
for land reform in Zimbabwe has been consistent and it remains
the same, that we are prepared to support a land reform process
but it has to be done under those key principles.
32. And it has not happened.
(Baroness Amos) Can I just say one other thing in
relation to that, which is that UNDP have just been in Zimbabwe
and they have been doing some very detailed work looking at the
whole land reform programme. That has been a very, very important
part of the agreement that was made at Abuja, which was that UNDP
would go in, they would have the capacity to look at exactly what
is happening on the ground and they would then make some recommendations
on the basis of that visit. We are waiting for the outcome of
that. We have been extremely concerned by the fact that the Government
of Zimbabwe have continued with a fast track process, that they
have changed the law at points where, in terms of their own land
reform process, when it has been judged by the courts to be illegal
they have then sought to change the law to make it legal. What
we have said is that we will not give money to a land reform programme
that we are not absolutely clear and convinced of, that is done
on the basis that it is transparent, sustainable and fair, and
that remains our position.
Sir John Stanley
33. Minister, as you know, we raised the issue
of the gross violations of the independence and the freedom of
the media in Zimbabwe when we saw the Foreign Secretary last week
and I would like to pursue that fundamentally important issue
further. As you know, the Zimbabwean Information Minister, Mr
Jonathan Moyo, has introduced new legislative proposals into the
Zimbabwean Parliament, including a catch-all criminal offence
for the media in Zimbabwe under which in the future it will be
a crime to criticise the President or to "spread alarm and
despondency". In addition, according to The Guardian
of 10 December, six journalists working for foreign newspapers,
apparently at Minister Moyo's request, have been accused by the
Zimbabwe Herald, which of course is the Government's newspaper
mouthpiece, of being "terrorists". The significance
of that, of course, is that anybody who is found guilty of being
a "terrorist" in Zimbabwe is likely to face the death
penalty. Against that background of the use of legislation to
intimidate the totality of the Zimbabwean media against publishing
anything that might be critical of the government and against
the selected targeting of individual journalists working for foreign
newspapers, can you tell us of any steps that the British Government
is specifically taking to try to support the remaining independent
media in Zimbabwe and any specific steps which the British Government
are taking to try and give support to individual journalists who
are being specifically targeted?
(Baroness Amos) The Information Bill will have its
Second Reading in the Government of Zimbabwe's Parliament on 18
December.[3]
We have said categorically that we find the use of the word "terrorist"
in applying it to journalists, who have been extremely brave in
working to ensure that the situation in Zimbabwe is brought to
the attention of the international community, absolutely absurd.
We have made strong representations and protests to the Government
of Zimbabwe about this and we will continue to do all we can to
support the continued existence of a strong independent media
in Zimbabwe. We have seen the importance of a strong independent
media in other countries in Africa in terms of ensuring that there
is a flourishing democracy, the capacity for people to express
their views, and we continue to think that this is extremely important
and we will continue to make extremely strong representations
to the Government of Zimbabwe on this.
34. On the issue of supporting individuals who
are being named targets as far as Minister Moyo and Mr Mugabe
are concerned, is the British Government willing to try to assist
those individuals, or any family members that they may have in
Zimbabwe, where those individuals wish to give their family members
greater protection by enabling them to leave the country on a
temporary or on a permanent basis? Is the British Government willing
to assist in the resettlement of any such family members as a
way of supporting those particular journalists in the extraordinarily
brave path that they are continuing to follow?
(Baroness Amos) Members of the Committee will be aware
that there is an extremely large British community in Zimbabwe
and our High Commission has worked very hard to ensure that members
of that community are registered with our High Commission. In
addition to that, our High Commissioner and other staff keep in
regular contact, not just with the British community but with
journalists and others who are facing intimidation. If we were
approached by those journalists or by the families of those journalists
expressing concern about their particular safety and security
we would, of course, look at that and we would then think about
what kind of support or response we could give to any particular
requests which were made.
Andrew Mackinlay
35. Can I just go back, Minister, to the question
of sanctions. My colleague referred to "smart sanctions"
and you referred to "targeted sanctions". Really what
is going through my mind is there is not a lot in our armoury,
is there, unless you are prepared, which I think is unacceptable
generally, to hit poor people, if I can put it that way? Also
there are some things which would be deemed as gestures, not that
gestures cannot be important, they can be. What are the options
that you would see in your category of targeted sanctions?
(Baroness Amos) When there are discussions of smart
or targeted sanctions, and there have been many discussions in
the press and, indeed, parliamentary questions which have been
asked about this, the areas which have been put to the Government
tend to be travel bans and asset freezes. These are the two areas
which are consistently raised with the Government when there is
discussion of smart and/or targeted sanctions.
36. I think on the other side of the coin, you
also referred to the fact that if there was some shift in attitude
and policy and practice there could be incentives, and clearly
one of those is great co-operation, assistance on land reform.
Are there any other carrots which either the United Kingdom or
the Commonwealth and European Union could either set explicitly
or could infer to the Government of Zimbabwe?
(Baroness Amos) There is also our broader development
agenda. We have, as the Chairman said, over the years given £500
million in development assistance to Zimbabwe. This has now been
scaled right back and our development assistance is now limited
to the area of work in HIV AIDS and some in terms of rural development.
This is an area where if we were confident that the Government
of Zimbabwe were meeting its commitments with respect to human
rights, the rule of law and so on, that we would look at. Of course,
there is EU assistance through the Cotonou Agreement and the United
States, through their Zimbabwe Democracy Act, have also talked
about incentives, including allocating $20 million for land reform.
There are a number of areas in which the international community
could give support to the Government of Zimbabwe and the people
of Zimbabwe in terms of its medium and long-term development but,
of course, we would have to be convinced that the Government of
Zimbabwe themselves were putting the concerns of their citizens
first, were themselves committed to working within an atmosphere
where governance, human rights and commitment to the rule of law
were the important principles under which they were operating.
37. One final thing. I do not know whether any
thought has ever been given to this. It seems to me that politicians
the whole world over from time immemorial do not know when to
give up and there is a category of rulers in the modern world
for whom it is much more difficult to give up. Is there ever consideration
both in relation to the President of Zimbabwe but other people
around the world—there is a particular President in Central
Europe I can think of—who almost cannot afford to give up?
Are there ever discussions as to how to give some guarantees to
people if they were to surrender their swords of office because
they could go with dignity and some security of not being prosecuted
or go to some safe haven? Can I just say for my own self-esteem,
as it were, I fully recognise and sign up to things like the International
Criminal Court but it does seem to me there are occasions when
there does need to be a signalling to people that if they were
to retire rather than go on for a life presidency, as it were,
they could go and have some opportunity of seeing their days out
with some reasonable standard of living, dignity and status?
(Baroness Amos) I would like to say two things. One,
just to finish off on your incentives point, there is of course
also the role of the international financial institutions in terms
of them putting resources into Zimbabwe. On your second point,
I think it is important that we are careful when we talk about
this. The reason I say that is what we want to see, and what I
think is very important, is that people have the freedom to exercise
their democratic right. There may well be instances where people
do have that free choice and they continue to vote for the same
person over a number of years, and we had a recent example of
that in our own country. I think the very, very important thing
is that we recognise and realise that people having the freedom
to exercise that democratic right is the core of what we are talking
about. Having said that, there are some good examples of presidents
in the region now who are going. President Chissano has said that
he will stand down and President Chiluba of Zambia has done that.
Any kind of exit strategy for a leader, we have to recognise that
is up to the people themselves. This is not about the British
Government interfering in the internal politics of another country,
we must make that absolutely clear.
Chairman: Minister, I think of President, Bokassa,
President Duvalier and President Amin, all of whom looked after
themselves and perhaps do not need our sympathy. Can I say to
you that I anticipate the Committee will continue to be exercised
about the crisis in Zimbabwe. We welcome your offer to come back
to the Committee and thank you very much indeed for sharing your
thoughts with us today.
3 Note by Witness: This did not in the event
happen. Second reading now unlikely until New Year. Back
|
