APPENDIX 3
Memorandum from the Britain Zimbabwe Society
1. The Britain Zimbabwe Society gave evidence
to the previous inquiry into Zimbabwe by the Foreign Affairs Committee[3].
We do not wish to repeat that evidence, except once again to identify
the Society as devoted to the interests of the people of Zimbabwe
rather than to any particular political party, and to re-emphasise
the need to support Zimbabwean civil society. In our previous
evidence we urged that the United Kingdom should offer more support
to Zimbabwean students and that the FCO should seek creative ways
to keep links with civil society organisations open. The situation
has developed and we wish now to make further recommendations,
both positive and negative.
2. Anyone devoted to the interests of the
people of Zimbabwe must now be mainly concerned with the desperate
shortage of food. On 4 December 2002 the Executive Director of
the World Food Programme, James Morris, reported to the Security
Council that "there were 14.5 million people in southern
Africa at risk . . . half of them in Zimbabwe". At the same
time he emphasised that only half of the WFP's budget for relief
had been contributed. A report by the Famine and Early Warning
Systems Network estimated that some 6.7 million Zimbabweans were
at risk and added that there was likely to be another drought
and that there was an acute shortage of seeds and fertilisers
for the current planting season. The Government of Zimbabwe has
recently said that it will have to source food for the whole population.
There is no doubt, therefore, that Zimbabwe faces both a sort-term
and a long-term crisis of subsistence.
3. In the long-term there must be an international
settlement which includes not only compensation for displaced
commercial farmers but also massive aid to newly settled small-scale
farmers. Such a settlement can best be achieved by setting up
an international land commission in which Britain does not play
the leading but plays a participatory role. In participating in
such a long-term settlement the British Government will be recognising
the colonial legacies of which the Foreign Secretary recently
spoke.
4. In the short term there must be much
greater food aid. We wish to draw the Committee's attention to
the announcement made on 3 December 2002 that the United States
Government has made a grant of $100 million "to help the
needs of people starving in southern Africa" to a consortium
of Christian agencies. The lead agency is to be World Vision,
acting in partnership with CARE and Catholic Relief. The money,
"one of the largest aid grants in history", will "go
towards emergency and supplementary food distribution, agricultural
support and development training in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe".
5. Despite its denunciations of the United
States, the Zimbabwe Government has expressed its readiness to
work with World Vision. The Bulawayo Chronicle of 27 December
reported that the Minister of Home Affairs, Kembo Mohadi, had
spoken at a dinner in Beitbridge hosted by World Vision. Mohadi
"commended World Vision Zimbabwe for the role it was playing
in giving free food to more than 37,000 people in Beitbridge"
and in distributing seeds.
6. We urge therefore that the British Government
make a grant of proportional generosity to a similar consortium
of British NGO, Christian and other Faith aid agencies. It should
enter into immediate discussion with the agencies to determine
how best this can be done.
7. Working in this way through British agencies
and their Zimbabwean partners and with local NGOs is the most
effective method of ensuring that food aid is distributed. We
have been assured that those agencies which work through Zimbabwean
partners have managed to obtain food and seed and to distribute
them despite all the difficulties. It is also one of the ways
to offer support to Zimbabwean civil society.
8. The Committee will be aware that in the
recent past there has been new legislation in Zimbabwe relating
to NGOs and that pressure has been put on some important agencies.
The Amani Trust in Matabeleland, for instance, which has played
a very significant role in human rights documentation and in the
healing of memories, has now suspended its operations. In this
situation the Zimbabwean churches have to assume a greater responsibility.
They do not have to register as NGOs and are seeking to persuade
the Zimbabwean Government that the distribution of food is a 'charitable
activity' and as such a religious duty.
9. The Society has been particularly impressed
by the recent efforts of the Zimbabwe Crisis Coalition, which
represents the collaboration of Zimbabwean civil society. The
Coalition has established a Peace Committee to bring together
churches and peace groups in Zimbabwe and across the SADC region.
It brings together three main church groups (Evangelical Fellowship
in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches and the Catholic
Bishops Conference) and peace organisations. The committee is
very much focussed on providing support for people affected by
famine.
10. On 13-14 December 2002 a National Peace
Convention was held in Bulawayo, attended by over 300 people,
including eight bishops from a variety of denominations such as
Catholic, Anglican, Brethren in Christ and Evangelical churches,
and over 70 pastors. Delegates from more than 50 civil society
organisations, representing women, youth, labour, etc also attended.
The Coaltion's report on this meeting claimed that "the gathering
opened up dialogue across denominational divides and outlined
practical steps". The meeting discussed the restoration of
peace, the processes of truth, justice and reconciliation, land
reform on an equitable basis, and the question of food security.
"Delegates established a taskforce to end the state monopoly
on importation and distribution and to promote the liberalisation
of food importation to permit business, churches and civil society
groups to help to feed the nation."
11. The Crisis Coalition plans further meetings
in southern Africa and a meeting in London in March/April 2003.
12. Support for the Crisis Coalition is
mainly a matter for British civil society. Both ACTSA and the
Britain Zimbabwe Society are in close contact with the Coalition.
Support for the Zimbabwean churches is mainly a matter for the
British Churches (and we hope very much that Churches Together
in Britain and Ireland and the new Archbishop of Canterbury, to
both of whom we are sending a copy of this submission, will give
a lead). We recommend, however, that both British parliamentarians
and the British Government take steps to familarise themselves
with the work of the Coalition and to give it what support is
asked for. It is acutely necessary that positive initiatives are
supported.
13. We wish to draw to the attention of
the Committee the extremely negative effect of one recent measure
taken by the British Government— namely the imposition of
a visa requirement for Zimbabweans coming to Britain.
14. The way in which this has been put into
effect has made the essential interaction between Zimbabweans
and Britons increasingly difficult. UK passport holders wishing
to travel to Zimbabwe now have to obtain visas but they can make
application at the port of entry, can obtain seats on flights
without showing a visa, and are charged a reasonable fee. For
Zimbabweans, however, obtaining a British visa is both very expensive
and very difficult. Visas can only be obtained at the British
High Commission in Harare; flights for London will not accept
Zimbabwean passengers unless they have visas in their passports;
applicants have to pay a non-refundable fee of $81,000 Zim, calculated
at an exchange rate of $2,200 to the £. (This is two months
worth of a Zimbabwean professorial salary). Recent applicants
have been told that their chances of obtaining a visa are very
low. The policy has already had the effect that Air Zimbabwe has
reduced its flights to London from five a week to two. The desirable
and healthy interaction between Zimbabwean churchmen, NGOs, businessmen,
academics, etc and their British counterparts is badly affected.
15. But we are most concerned with the effect
of this measure on Zimbabweans who are at risk of violence. The
present visa provisions make it very difficult for legitimate
asylum seekers to make application. In any case the expense and
delay in themselves place very great obstacles in the way of the
genuine asylum seeker whom the British Government says it wishes
to assist. Once again the Home Office and the Foreign Office seem
to be at odds in their interpretation of Zimbabwean realities.
16. We recommend that British visa fees
be lowered substantially and that British visa practice should
follow Zimbabwean.
17. In summary the Society is supportive
of all initiatives which involve Zimbabweans positively with Britons.
It condemns an emphasis solely on boycotts and exclusions.
Britain Zimbabwe Society
Oxford
13 January 2003
3 Foreign Affairs Committee, Tenth Report of Session
2001-02, Zimbabwe, HC 813, Ev 30. Back
| 
