| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
It is of serious concern that two American companies are in cahoots with Mugabe. Sentry Financial Corporation and Dimon Inc. are involved in the tobacco-for-maize scam. I hope that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) chairs, will investigate that scam as, surprisingly, our Government do not seem to know about it. On 24 June, Baroness Amos told the House of Lords:
"I am aware of the rumours with respect to Zimbabwe selling tobacco in exchange for maize."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 1345.]
The reports are not rumours, though: they are real. At least the US authorities are aware of what is happening, and the US Congress and Treasury are now investigating the two firms involved.
1 Jul 2004 : Column 467
Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing well with his description of the crisis. Is not another reason why President Mugabe and his regime have failed to recognise the existence of the crisis that, if they did so, they would have to recognise the total failure of their programmes?
Mr. Ancram: When I was there, my impression was of a tyranny that was trying to oppress its people and to get the world to avert its gaze. I shall tell the House about one of the things that touched me most. I met some black farm workers who were living in the woods. They were destitute, lacking clothes, food or houses. Their children's schools had been closed. As I left, one said to me, "Please don't let the world forget us." That is at the heart of what we want to make sure that Robert Mugabe does not achieve: he must not make the world forget about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
There are other huge problems in Zimbabwe. AIDS is rife: one third of the population has HIV. The Government's AIDS levy is failing to get through to the front-line services. Hospitals and clinics cannot afford even the most basic of AIDS testing kits.
Sometimes I wonder whether the money is actually being directed to the fight against AIDS. A recent National Audit Office report on the HIV/AIDS strategy of the Department for International Development was highly critical. It found that DFID's country assistance plans do not address the issue of HIV/AIDS consistently and that many of them
"failed to consider the effect of the epidemic on poverty reduction".
I hope that the Minister will address that specific point when he winds up later.
I turn briefly to cricket. We meet on the same day as the International Cricket Council meets to take a final view on the issue. Sometimes I am told that I should not try to bring politics into sport. In a sense, the Foreign Secretary was trying to suggest that that was what I was doing, in his attempt to make political capital out of the debate. I have not tried to bring politics into sport. This is not a question of sport versus politics. It is a question of morality versus money. Given the situation I have described in Zimbabwe, I cannot see how in conscience England's cricketers should be asked to play even one-day internationals in Zimbabwe this autumn. The tests have gone, but we are told that the one-day matches are still on. The Zimbabwe Cricket Union, whose patron—as we have been reminded—is Mugabe, has already played cynical and apparently racist politics with its own team selection. Anything that gives comfort to the ZCU or to Mugabe in terms of sport should be abandoned. The tour should not take place, full stop. The Government should clearly and unequivocally say so, and say so now. Unfortunately, we have once again had only weasel words from Ministers.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con):
My right hon. Friend has summed up the point very well, but does he recall that for the South African cricket team of 30 years ago, it was the racially biased opposition to the selection of Basil d'Oliveira that led to South African cricket being outlawed and boycotted? It was the racism element that caused that, and now we see racism in the selection of the Zimbabwean team.
1 Jul 2004 : Column 468
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. On occasions, I have been told that the issue is purely about sport, but if one listens to the former captain of the Zimbabwean team, Mr. Streak, it is clear that there is much more to it. The sort of racist and discriminatory behaviour to which my hon. Friend refers has indeed occurred.
The greatest deficit is in the international response. I have to say that it has been lamentable. For a start, far greater pressure must be brought to bear on President Mbeki of South Africa. He must be told the bald truth that his policy of quiet diplomacy is dead and buried. What happened to his vain promise to President Bush last year that by June 2004 Zimbabwe's problems would be solved? The House will remember that promise. Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad is on record as saying again last week:
"it is clear that we will not meet the June deadline".
He can say that again, because as far as we know no talks are taking place. Mr. Pahad continued:
"I have no other alternative to quiet diplomacy, so we will continue with quiet diplomacy."
The truth is that quiet diplomacy has failed and we should acknowledge that. There are those in South Africa who courageously speak out on the matter, including not least Archbishop Tutu and opposition leader Tony Leon. We should listen closely to what they say and praise them for their courage in saying it.
I have been to New York and asked why the United Nations does not get involved. The response, I have to say, is pathetic. I am fobbed off with the answer that because the Zimbabwe crisis is an internal or domestic problem, the UN cannot get involved—tell that to some 127,000 Zimbabwean refugees who are trying to get into Botswana each month. Is the UN blind to the refugees who flee over the border to Botswana, South Africa and Malawi, bringing economic havoc in their wake? And do the demolition of human rights, ethnic cleansing, or the suggestions of genocide by starvation not concern the UN? Why is it concerned about such problems in Darfur, but not in Zimbabwe? Come to think of it, the UN response has been to put both Zimbabwe and Sudan on the UN Commission for Human Rights. Is it surprising that the people of Zimbabwe feel betrayed?
Then there is the EU and its much-vaunted sanctions, about which we heard much today. In all honesty, I have watched those sanctions in action and they are pretty toothless. The red-carpet treatment that Mugabe received in Paris a year ago was a disgrace. People in Zimbabwe ask about that when we talk about the sanctions working. It was an example of how the EU sanctions are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. That visit totally undermined the credibility of EU sanctions both internationally, and in Zimbabwe. There is a strong suspicion in Zimbabwe that some European member states tacitly wish to support Mugabe. When there is a need comprehensively to strengthen the sanctions, we hear that there are voices in the EU that are arguing that they should be abandoned—so much for a common EU foreign policy.
The EU has a real chance of imposing real pressure on the Mugabe regime. When will it accept its moral responsibilities and act effectively? The sad reality is that by the time the EU sanctions come up for review next year—by which time, the Foreign Secretary tells us, he
1 Jul 2004 : Column 469
may have listened to further suggestions—Zimbabwe could well have become a failed state, with all the domestic and international implications of that. What defines a failed state? I shall give one definition:
"In general terms, a state fails when it is unable . . . to control its territory and guarantee the security of its citizens; to maintain the rule of law, promote human rights and provide effective governance; and to deliver public goods to its population (such as economic growth, education and healthcare)."
That is a good description of Zimbabwe today, but it is not my definition. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will recognise those words, because he used them in a speech in September 2002. I agree with that definition. He even offered a solution. He said:
"Experience suggests that the prevention of state failure depends on a scarce commodity: international political will. If we are to secure public and international support for action, we"—
"need to make the case for early engagement much more strongly."
I totally agree, so why have the Government failed to act decisively or even to take a firm lead? Why are they reluctant to lead from the front?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |