---

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): The Foreign Secretary is perfectly correct to place it on record that the British Government of the time did not make the protest that they should have done. But will he also put it on record that nor did the Opposition at the time?

Mr. Straw: We have looked through Hansard, and the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but it was
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 452
 
the Government who had the responsibility—I am sure that a point will be made back to me in a moment. There were Adjournment debates about the massacres in Matabeleland, and the response was remarkably muted, not least because of the reassuring words that the House were offered. Speaking in 2002, Lord Howe said of that period that it was

"a difficult situation for Mr. Mugabe to handle."

At the time, in response to a debate initiated, I think, by a Labour Opposition Member, the then Minister of State in the Foreign Office, Malcolm Rifkind, said:

"We recognise that the Zimbabwe authorities face a security problem in Matabeleland."—[Official Report, 25 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 606.]

Perhaps they had faced a security problem there, but massacring 20,000 people is no response to a security problem in any civilised country.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I should like to make a little progress.

Serious opposition to Mugabe's rule emerged again in the late 1990s with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. The MDC's influence became clear in 2000, when a referendum on constitutional changes saw ZANU-PF's first-ever defeat in a popular poll. This time Robert Mugabe responded to opposition to his rule by seizing on the issue of land reform, breaking away from the pathway based on the rule of law which had been agreed at Lancaster house—by him—and beginning a policy of violent appropriation.

So great was international concern at this that President Mugabe reluctantly agreed that his Foreign Minister, Stanislaus Mudenge, would meet a delegation of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Abuja in September 2001, under the aegis of President Obasanjo of Nigeria. I attended that meeting on behalf of the United Kingdom. After some very tough negotiations, we agreed a deal—between the six Commonwealth Ministers and the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister—to end the crisis. The text is available. The deal was that the international community would provide further money for land reform in exchange for a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe. I, as it were, put a cheque from the British Government on the table.

Mugabe, however, quickly reneged on the agreement, not least because international focus was rapidly moving elsewhere following the atrocities of 11 September, five days later, in New York and Washington. The farm invasions and human rights abuses that had preceded the Abuja meeting were swiftly resumed, and the abuses continue today. They form part of a wider picture of disastrous policies in Zimbabwe, which have brought economic ruin on a once prospering country: a man-made tragedy which Zimbabwe could and should have avoided.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not giving way earlier, because what he has said strengthens my point.

Not many Labour Members are now happy to defend the Government's stance on Iraq in public, although I am one. One of the points that is always thrown at us at
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 453
 
public meetings is that the Government were resolute in Iraq but lack that resolution in Zimbabwe. What are we going to do, apart from organising protests, to stop the genocide that is unfolding before us?

Mr. Straw: I am deeply grateful for my right hon. Friend's support on Iraq, although I must add that he is in good and wide company. [Interruption.] Yes, and deep. I shall offer him some counsel after the debate.

What my right hon. Friend is displaying is, of course, frustration. But although what is going on in Zimbabwe is appalling, the present situation—in terms of human rights—is not as terrible as that of the mid-1980s, when the then Government sat on their hands. Nor is it as terrible as what happened under Saddam's regime, over 35 years, on any scale. We should be clear about that. We have not been able to do everything—and I shall deal specifically with what my right hon. Friend has in mind—but that does not mean that we have not been able to do anything.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Rather than making a comparison with Iraq, will my right hon. Friend consider western Darfur, where the international community has been extremely effective—hopefully, at least—in putting pressure on the Sudanese Government to deal with their humanitarian problems, to give the people protection and food, and to allow aid to go in while the political situation is being resolved?

Mr. Straw: As I shall explain, we have done a huge amount to build up international consensus. There are limits to that, but if we had not worked by engaging fully with the European Union and the Commonwealth we would have been able to do far less, however loud our protests. I might add that one of the reasons why the full extent of Mugabe's economic policies is disguised is the extent, and relative efficiency, of the food aid that we are providing. That has not been the case in respect of western Darfur.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way once more; then I must make some progress.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the massacre in Matabeleland in 1983. Some Conservative Members made representations to the Government, not least by tabling questions. I deeply regret the fact that the Government of the day did not act to deal with what was clearly happening, for whatever reason—in my view, a lack of moral principle. Will the Foreign Secretary now announce that additional action will be taken to help the poor people of Zimbabwe?

Mr. Straw: I will set out the action that we are already taking, but I have no announcement to make about additional action. The action that we have taken was dependent not on a debate, but on a clear analysis.

The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that he has been consistent in his representations about what has happened in Zimbabwe. Indeed, I have before me a
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 454
 
question he put to the then Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, on 22 February 1984. He asked a fine question; I am afraid he received a dead bat of an answer.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress. I may be able to take an intervention later.

Let me spell out the facts. Three quarters of the Zimbabwean population are now living below the poverty line. Some 7 million people have required food aid in recent seasons, in a country which only a few years ago exported food to its neighbours. But despite the evidence of another humanitarian crisis in prospect for this year, the Government of Zimbabwe claim that international food aid will not be needed. That decision not to ask for assistance will make it difficult for donors to deliver an effective international response if and when food aid is in fact required.

Alongside his disastrous policies, Mugabe's ZANU-PF party continues to suppress all opposition to his rule. Both print and broadcast media in Zimbabwe are now virtually a Government-controlled monopoly. The judgment in the trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai has still not been handed down, although the trial itself concluded months ago.

The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial, which could be used to suppress dissent and protest. According to a report issued by a South African-based non-governmental organisation last March, 90 per cent. of opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subjected to human rights violations since 2000: 16 per cent. have been tortured, 24 per cent. say that they have suffered assassination attempts, and three have died as a result of assaults.

Mr. Gibb: In March this year, the Prime Minister made an important speech on global terror in which he, in effect, announced a new doctrine of intervention in cases in which states

"oppress and brutalise their people",

which he rightly saw as a future source of international terror. That was an impressive and important speech, but I am unclear about how the new doctrine applies to countries such as Zimbabwe, particularly in view of other international commitments in respect of our troops.

---