Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
BARONESS AMOS,
DR ANDREW
POCOCK AND
MR TONY
BRENNAN
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
Mr Olner
160. Yes, two very brief questions, Baroness
Amos. Would you subscribe to the view that most of the people
that you mentioned earlier that are struggling to get a subsistence
or a living out on the land by eating what they can catch, or
what have you, actually are the victims of Mugabe's war against
them, and the weapon he has used against them is food, and food
that we are supplying? And it is said in some quarters that the
food that is being supplied is keeping Mugabe in power, because
none of his enemies can rise up against him, because he keeps
his own people on board because he is able to feed them. The other
thing is, and an answer to Sir Patrick Cormack, I think, and I
am fairly optimistic that land in Zimbabwe could be brought into
existence again as farming land very much quicker, because what
Zimbabwe has got is a great huge raft of native Zimbabweans who
have been used to working on the land, and the land reform has
gone wrong because it is people who do not know anything about
the land who have been given the land?
(Baroness Amos) A number of people have said that
what the international community is doing through humanitarian
assistance is helping to prop up the Mugabe regime, and that,
in fact, if we were not doing what we are doing currently with
respect to food aid and humanitarian assistance, we would have
seen the fall of the regime by now. That may be so, it is very
hard to predict, but we feel very strongly that we have a responsibility,
and I think that the British people feel that we have a responsibility
to the people of Zimbabwe. So I think it is a travesty that the
money that we are giving for humanitarian aid could have been
money that was given for the long-term sustainable development
of the country, and, what we agreed in 1998, in terms of the transparent
and fair land reform process, signed up to by everyone, that we
were not able to go down that route. With respect to your second
question about the length of time to bring land back into use,
and so on, let me make it clear that, you are absolutely right
that there are thousands of people with the right kinds of skills,
the farmland could be brought back into use very quickly, capital
would need to be made available, inputs could be made available.
I think that, if we saw a different kind of regime in Zimbabwe,
one that was committed to macroeconomic reform, one that was committed
to dealing with poverty, the international community would get
together very quickly, and we could see a kind of exponential,
if you like, development and growth. So the kind of 50 years scenario
that was mentioned earlier is not necessarily one that will happen,
all I was saying was that the degree of economic implosion that
we have seen, with respect to not just commercial farming but
what has happened to the currency, the lack of availability of
foreign currency in the country, the fact that there is negative
growth, in fact the economy contracted by some 11% last year,
the fact that new investors will not invest in the region, much
less in Zimbabwe, that these things pull together, and, if you
had the maintenance of a similar kind of regime, could well mean
that recovery would take much longer; it does not have to take
that long, it could take that long.
Mr Hamilton
161. Minister, the US State Department published
a document two weeks ago, called "Zimbabwe's Manmade Crisis"
and in that they quote Didymus Mutasa, the Foreign Secretary of
the ruling ZANU-PF party, as saying, "We would be better
off with only 6 million people [out of a total of 12 million],
with our own people who support the liberation struggle."
Would you like to comment on that?
(Baroness Amos) I have seen those comments, and, even
worse than that, the Committee may have seen remarks made by Robert
Mugabe on 21 March, where he actually compared himself with Hitler.
I think what it points to is what I said before, which is that
here is a regime that actually cares nothing about the suffering
of its own people and actually is quite happy for countries like
the United States and the United Kingdom, which are constantly
berated, held up to ridicule by the regime, to be the biggest
humanitarian donors in the country, keeping their people from
the edge of starvation.
Mr Chidgey
162. Baroness Amos, good afternoon to you. Can
I turn now to look in a little more detail at relations between
the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe, in this particular area that
we have been talking about. Just to start off, a rather intriguing
report that appeared in the Zimbabwe Herald on 13 March,
which is, as I am sure you know, the official mouthpiece of ZANU-PF,
it carried a report suggesting that the Anglican Church is being
used as a channel of communication between the Governments of
the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe, and, to quote it just quickly,
it said: "Zimbabwe's concerns to Britain were presented to
the Archbishop of Canterbury for him to relay them to the British
Government under a mediation process that seeks to resolve a long
standing dispute between the two countries." And that the
Head of the Anglian Church in South Africa would be presenting
Zimbabwe's concerns, acting as the mediator. Is there any truth
in those reports, do you know?
(Baroness Amos) Perhaps I can help the Committee on
this. The Archbishop of Cape Town has become very concerned, because
of representations that have been made to him, about the situation
in Zimbabwe, and he wondered if there were any action that he
could take perhaps that would help in this situation. And he came
to the United Kingdom as part of a wider set of consultations
that he has been undertaking in South Africa, in the region, to
see if there were any kind of initiative that perhaps he could
initiate which would help with the situation. He saw Foreign Office
officials as part of those consultations, he has made, as far
as I am aware, two visits to Zimbabwe; the first, he spoke to
Robert Mugabe, on the second visit he spoke to a much broader
range of stakeholders in Zimbabwe. He has not been back in touch
with us, in terms of what his next steps might be, I think his
plan was to talk to as wide a range of stakeholders as possible
and then to think about whether there were any ways in which he
could assist. I am aware that one of the things that he was thinking
about was whether he could establish some kind of eminent persons
group that might be perhaps of some help, but whether or not this
remains his proposal, whether or not his recent visit to Zimbabwe
and his discussion with key stakeholders has led him to go down
a different path, I am not aware.
163. Do we know who were the groups or individuals
who made representations to him, were they from Zimbabwe, were
they from South Africa, were there other nations in there?
(Baroness Amos) I think, on the whole, they were from
South Africa, but my colleague, Dr Pocock, met with the Archbishop.
(Dr Pocock) I am very happy to answer that, because
the Archbishop actually saw me when he was in London. He went
back to Zimbabwe on 12 March, he saw Robert Mugabe, again, as
the Minister has said, but he did see a broader range of people,
including the MDC, and various non-governmental organisations
and church bodies. His intention was to have a broad consultation,
as Baroness Amos has said; his initial contact was with Robert
Mugabe himself, and I think he came away with a sense that there
was a problem there but he was not sure how big the problem was.
Having spoken now more broadly, by no means just to ourselves
but within Zimbabwe, which is where it really counts, he has a
much richer sense I think that there is more than a bilateral
quarrel between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom on the issue of
land, it is actually a very much broader question of governance,
with a lot of stakeholders who have much to say to him about this,
and, as Baroness Amos says, he has come away from his second consultation
visit to reflect on how he might take this forward. As far as
we are aware, he has not made any decisions on this, but he is
considering what further steps he and perhaps other church colleagues
might take.
(Baroness Amos) May I add that the Herald now
have said, following his second visit and the fact that he saw
a wide range of stakeholders, that they do not trust him and that
he is anti-Zimbabwe.
164. I see; thank you. A slight change of subject
matter, within the same area, Baroness Amos. You have mentioned
already, to a degree anyway, contacts with various UN organisations,
and I note that in the FCO memorandum to the Committee it was
pointed out that the UNDP[9]
briefed the Security Council on Zimbabwe in December[10].
What I would like to ask you specifically is if, with the help
of your colleagues, you can tell us this, how many times in the
past year has the Government raised the situation in Zimbabwe
at the United Nations?
(Baroness Amos) It was the World Food
Programme that addressed the Security Council in December, it
was James Morris, the Head of the World Food Programme, who addressed
the Security Council on the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa,
including in Zimbabwe.
165. You mentioned also, earlier, the question,
quite robustly, about the situation in Zimbabwe, and you gave
a comparison, I think Iraq was mentioned, on the question of famine,
and so on, you gave the example that, I think, 84 politically-motivated
deaths occurred in Zimbabwe, comparing those with a million elsewhere.
It does raise the question really, that if you could give us your
view on, how bad does the crisis in Zimbabwe therefore have to
get before the Security Council is invited to pass a resolution?
(Baroness Amos) As I tried to explain earlier, the
Security Council tends to intervene when there is a concern that
what is happening in a country will have an impact on international
peace and security. The situation in Zimbabwe at the moment is
very much contained in Zimbabwe, although there has been a steady
move of refugees into other countries, but it has been a steady
flow, it has not been anything like a mass movement of refugees.
South Africa, as we know, have faced a particular problem in terms
of Zimbabweans trying to get into South Africa illegally, but
it is not judged to be a threat to international peace and security.
And that is the difficulty that we have, in terms of getting Zimbabwe
onto the Security Council agenda, not through the humanitarian
crisis but as a political issue, because the Security Council
tends to shy away from issues which are seen as being internal,
domestic, political issues.
166. I quite understand, yes. So is it the case,
therefore, that, unless there was a considerable degree of concern
raised by the neighbouring countries about probable instability,
reaching beyond Zimbabwe's borders into their countries, that
really would be the only way that it was likely to get onto the
Security Council agenda?
(Baroness Amos) That is one possible method. We continue
to look at whether or not it is something which could be raised
in the UN Security Council; we have to remember that the Security
Council is made up of 50 members, they do not all necessarily
think the same, as Committee members will know, from recent events.
But also coming back to your specific point about how bad do things
have to get, I am very wary of making comparisons, and one of
the reasons that I am wary of making comparisons, and my African
interlocutors quite often raise this with me and say that there
are countries in the world that are much worse, I think it is
important for us to remember where Zimbabwe started from. So the
comparison, in a way, could be Zimbabwe previously and Zimbabwe
now, because where we would have expected Zimbabwe to be, had
it stayed on course post-independence, certainly is not where
Zimbabwe is now, and that is why I am wary of comparisons. Because
if the comparisons are too stark and they are made with the wrong
kind of countries, I think, quite frankly, it lets Robert Mugabe
and his regime off the hook, because what they have done is plunged
what was a relatively successful economy in Southern Africa in
the opposite direction, now it is the worst-performing economy
in Africa, and this is from a country that was the bread-basket
of the region.
167. Thank you very much. Can I just come back
to the memorandum which you have provided the Committee with,
it is paragraph 8, it is concerning the EU, and the memorandum
noted that: "The EU has tabled a resolution on Zimbabwe for
discussion at the UN Commission on Human Rights[11],"
which is meeting currently. Can we have your view on the prospects
of this resolution being passed?
(Baroness Amos) It is very difficult
to say. As I said earlier to the Committee, the resolution that
was tabled last year was not even put to the vote because there
was blocking action by the African countries. The EU has tabled
a resolution again, it has not yet been taken, but we do have
a situation in the Commission on Human Rights where there are
a number of tensions, there are differences, particularly now,
with respect to what is going on in Iraq, so it is very difficult
to make a judgment.
168. Baroness Amos, we have had recently an
informal meeting with staff from SW Radio Africa, I am sure you
are aware of the work that they do. One of the issues that they
drew to our attention was the difficulty they are having in raising
funds, and that current donors have expressed a wish to our Government
that they should help in this exercise, but there seems to have
been some delay in the FCO making a decision because they are
insisting on carrying out a full listener survey. Can I put it
to you that you might wish to examine how that listener survey
is being undertaken, because I am sure you understand how the
station works; their concern is that if one applies the normal
techniques for a listener survey they will not apply because many
people will not be prepared to admit that they listen to this
radio for fear of reprisals? Can you let the Committee know now,
or perhaps later, how you are handling this particular difficult
and different situation in assessing the validity, in terms of
its audience, of this radio station, and therefore helping to
form your decision on giving them aid?
(Baroness Amos) I appreciate absolutely the difficulties
if we were to use conventional methods. I know exactly how SW
Radio works. We will look at any application. As I said to the
Committee earlier, I would much rather give to the Committee in
a confidential memorandum details of those organisations that
we are supporting in Zimbabwe.
169. That will be very helpful. I have one final
question, which is somewhat different from the earlier ones. Speaking
in the Lords on 5 March, you confirmed to those people in the
other place that Robert Mugabe is a Knight Commander of the Order
of the Bath, which, as I am sure you appreciate, had a fairly
violent reaction in many parts of this country. Can you tell the
Committee, will the Prime Minister be recommending to Her Majesty
that Mugabe should be stripped of his honours?
(Baroness Amos) I think the Committee will understand
when I say that this was brought to our attention, this was an
honour that was given in 1994 when there was a state visit, as
I understand it. Our priority has been to work on the humanitarian,
political and economic issues in Zimbabwe, so this has not been
an issue that I have taken up in that way with the Prime Minister.
I note the Committee's concern and I will certainly take it back.
Mr Chidgey: Thank you very much, Chairman.
Sir Patrick Cormack
170. And separately tell the Prime Minister
that he is about as worthy a recipient as Ceaucescu?
(Baroness Amos) I am also aware of the example of
Ceaucescu.
Chairman: We would like to turn now to the European
Union, and Mr Pope, please.
Mr Pope
171. First of all, could I ask a question about
France. It is only just a month ago that Robert Mugabe was invited
to Paris as a guest of the French Government, as part of the France/Africa
Summit. I was utterly dismayed at the behaviour of the French
in doing that, and, across the political divide, many Members
of Parliament were just absolutely outraged that the French did
that. Could I ask, first of all, did the British Government share
that dismay and outrage, and, if so, what protests were made to
the French Government prior to the Mugabe visit, and what reasons
did the French give for overriding our own protests?
(Baroness Amos) I think the Committee will know that
we worked very hard indeed to get the EU sanctions, including
the travel ban, and certainly we did not want to see Mugabe, or
indeed anybody on the travel ban list, travelling to London, Paris,
or any other European capital; so we were disappointed. But I
do think that it is important that I make some things clear to
the Committee. Our absolute priority was to work for rollover
of EU sanctions for a further year. I have been asked a number
of times about the use of these sanctions, and, in particular,
given that they are not economic sanctions, what is their purpose.
A key element of their purpose is to demonstrate to the Mugabe
regime their international isolation. Members of the Committee
will know that, with 15 EU member countries, taking very different
positions about sanctions and whether or not sanctions is the
appropriate tool, getting agreement to the travel ban and the
assets freeze and the moratorium on arms sales was very important
indeed, and getting the sanctions rollover also was important.
For the French Government, and again Committee members will know
that the French Government historically do not take the same view
necessarily as we do about the usefulness of sanctions, the French
Government felt very strongly that they wanted to have an opportunity
for discussion and dialogue at the highest level about what was
going on in Zimbabwe and felt that there were some very strong
messages that they wanted to impart with respect to that. Our
view was that this would not be helpful, that it would be a propaganda
coup for Mugabe, a position that was not shared by our French
colleagues. So there was discussion on this. Eventually, we got
agreement to sanctions rollover, the sanctions were due to run
out on 18 February, the France/Africa Summit was due to start
on 19 February. A majority of EU members wanted the rollover of
sanctions, we got agreement from all the EU members in the end,
we needed consensus.
Sir Patrick Cormack
172. Did they give him the Légion
d'honneur?
(Baroness Amos) Not as far as I am aware.
Mr Pope
173. It struck me, and, in some ways, that is
even worse than I thought it was, because I assumed at the time
that the French were being as reliable allies as ever they are,
but, in fact, it is worse than that. The truth is then that it
is not just that the French were being an unreliable ally, it
is that we did a deal with the French, so we soft-pedalled our
protest on Mugabe visiting Paris in return for renewal of the
sanctions measure?
(Baroness Amos) No, that is not true, and I hope that
the Committee did not take that as a sense from what I was saying.
I was trying to be clear to the Committee that there was a range
of discussions in the run-up to the discussion that we had at
the EU meeting about the rollover of sanctions. In those discussions,
the French made it absolutely clear that they wanted to have Mugabe
at their meeting because they felt that there were things that
they wanted to say and discussions that they wanted to have. Our
priority was sanctions rollover, we did not do a deal, we expressed
to the French our concerns about Mugabe's visit, but the French
were adamant that they wanted him in Paris. At the same time,
and this is what I am trying to explain to the Committee, we needed
to have all EU Member States agree on sanctions rollover, or we
would not have got it.
Chairman
174. Are you not agreeing with Mr Pope, in a
different way?
(Baroness Amos) No, I am not agreeing with Mr Pope.
What I am trying to explain is that there were discussions which
were going on which related to how we could achieve sanctions
rollover, but the Committee should not take from that that there
was a deal. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Chairman: Mr Pope, are you satisfied?
Mr Pope
175. I can see the point that you are making,
and I appreciate that. What I really want is an assurance that
the strongest possible protests were made to the Government of
France prior to Robert Mugabe being invited, I just want confirmation
that that is the case?
(Baroness Amos) We did make it clear. I think that
if you look back at the record you will see that the Prime Minister
made a statement about his disappointment to Parliament, as did
the Foreign Secretary, so it was made at the highest levels.
Mr Illsley
176. To Parliament, or to France? You said that
the Prime Minister made a statement and the Foreign Secretary
made a statement to Parliament; were any representations made
to France at the highest level?
(Baroness Amos) Yes, they were.
Mr Pope
177. Just on the sanctions themselves, we have
received evidence from a number of organisations, and I think
many Members of Parliament believe that the sanctions do not go
far enough; now I am not underestimating the difficulty of getting
agreement across the 15 Member States, and I can appreciate it
was difficult to get the sanctions renewed. What I really want
to ask is, do you share that view, that the sanctions should be
tightened further, and, if you do, why were we not able to secure
a further tightening of the sanctions when they were renewed last
month?
(Baroness Amos) The sanctions were tightened twice
last year. The Committee will recall that when the sanctions first
came into effect, on 18 February last year, there were some 20
individuals on the list; on 22 July they were tightened so that
52 names were added, and in September a further seven names were
added, so the sanctions were tightened twice last year. On a number
of occasions we have been asked why spouses and children could
not be added to the list. I think that, what I have said to the
Committee about the importance of having all EU Member States
agree with the action which is being taken, otherwise we do not
get agreement and so it does not go through, this is something
which has been the subject of discussion. I am sure that the European
Union will come back to this issue of whether or not the sanctions
need to be strengthened, extended, in any way, but I cannot guarantee
to the Committee that in the coming year they will be; but I am
sure that this is something that will be discussed again.
178. Just a final question, if I may, Chairman,
to ask whether or not we have been more successful, than clearly
we were with France, with other EU states in getting them to withdraw
invitations that had been made, or have there been no other examples
of people wanting to travel to EU Member States, or have we been
successful in getting them withdrawn, or, in fact, have we been
rebuffed, as clearly we were with France?
(Baroness Amos) There have been a number of occasions
where members of the Zimbabwe elite who were on the list made
visa applications to other EU countries, which were turned down.
Can I just repeat that we could not stop Mugabe going to Paris.
The French wanted Mugabe to go to Paris, and on that basis they
were prepared to invite him and have him there.
179. Obviously, I accept that point completely.
The issue I was trying to get at, at the beginning of my questions,
was how strenuously did we put our point that we thought it was
a disgrace that he was being invited to Paris, and really what
I wanted was an assurance that the kind of outrage that many MPs
feel was passed on to the Government of France as being the view
of the UK Government?
(Baroness Amos) Can I assure you that the concern
that you feel was felt by the Government and that this was passed
on to the Government in France. Can I add also just two things.
One is that, the reason, there was much too'ing and fro'ing, as
members of the Committee will recall, about sanctions rollover,
France/Africa and EU/Africa, and I would like to reassure the
Committee that sanctions rollover was agreed immediately. The
ongoing discussion between EU member countries was about the France/Africa
Summit, and subsequently about the EU/Africa Summit, which also
was postponed.
Mr Pope: Thank you for that; that was helpful.
9 United Nations Development Programme. Back
10
See Ev 19, para 16. Back
11
See Ev 18, para 8. Back
|
