| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John Bercow: Is my hon. Friend not also concerned about the reckless deportation under the auspices of the Home Office of a number of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers, with the consequence that they are seriously at risk of arrest, imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all four? Does he agree that it is lamentable that a constituent of mine was told that he could safely be removed to Zimbabwe because, although he supported the MDC, he was not an office-holder in the MDC? Does that not show a degree of ignorance of the sheer viciousness of the Zimbabwean regime, as well as the extensiveness of its intelligence operations?
Mr. Simpson: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this. Given what is going on in Zimbabwe—the actions of the Government, across the piece, against Opposition leaders, local people and business men, a legal system that does not work, and the actions of police and paramilitaries—the idea of deporting anybody is absolutely wrong. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will look again at any cases that they have before them.
The kind of pressure that I have been outlining could be achieved by defining a set of US and EU incentives and disincentives to accompany the sanctions, with specific benchmarks on Zimbabwe’s progress. We must make it clear that the international community stands ready to support and assist Zimbabwe if its leadership is prepared to make the dramatic change needed to give the country a truly democratically elected Government. I cannot see any circumstances in which President Mugabe is going to give in to such sanctions. He will step down only if members of his own coterie and political party remove him in one way or another, or if he is persuaded to do so through pressure from the powerful leaders of neighbouring countries who force him to recognise that his only way out is a retirement home in some third country where he will be given a suitable pension. Although I would regret his receiving such a pension, that would be in line with one or two other tyrants who have ruled in post-colonial Africa.
The international community must now take firm steps in a concerted manner, and many of us look to the British Government to take the lead. We should work closely with international partners to widen the EU sanctions list to include family members and business associates of the regime. Adding the governor of the reserve bank to the list and subjecting institutions in Zimbabwe that are instruments of the Government, and their members, to the same controls are ways in which further pressure can be applied to the regime’s Ministers and officials. A refusal to issue President Mugabe with an invitation to the EU/AU summit later this year would send a very plain message. If that is not possible, our Prime Minister should refuse to attend that summit. We should also consider action by the International Criminal Court and persuade southern African countries and institutions such as the AU and the Commonwealth to exploit their many points of influence with the Mugabe regime, which would squeeze his room for manoeuvre.
The spectre of disaster has hung over Zimbabwe for too long. Many of us have received messages, e-mails and letters from constituents who have friends and relatives there. We have a duty not only because of our colonial past but because of our international role. I
genuinely believe that the Minister made the best she could of her script, but I am afraid that it was, at least for Conservative Members, totally unacceptable.
3.18 pm
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I share other Members’ concern about the absence of the Foreign Secretary. Given the amount of notice for this debate and its importance to Parliament—and, indeed, to my Government, given what the Prime Minister has said about Africa—it is very sad that the Foreign Secretary finds himself unable to attend, thereby allowing the shadow Foreign Secretary to re-book his flight to Washington, having cancelled it because it seemed on Monday that the Foreign Secretary was going to be here. I hope that that does not in any way reflect on the firmness of the Government’s commitment to do something quickly about Zimbabwe. It is a bad day for Parliament.
However, the fact that we are discussing Zimbabwe in the House will be a morale boost for the very many brave people I have got to know during my visits to Zimbabwe, and for Zimbabweans generally. As they endure ever-increasing hardship and oppression, we must continue to reaffirm our solidarity with them until they gain their liberation and dignity. That can come about only through absolutely free and fair elections that are internationally monitored.
I shall not go through a list of events, as the Minister has already done so, and they have been mentioned many times, but the recent news from Zimbabwe has been increasingly grim, as the regime’s rather cynical policy of enforcing price cuts takes effect. As with the earlier campaigns that destroyed commercial farming, and Operation Clear Out Rubbish, this operation has been carried out with ruthless efficiency, regardless of financial or human cost, and with the sole objective of entrenching ZANU-PF rule.
I am proud to be chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, many members of which are here today. During the past few years, I have felt it important to get inside Zimbabwe to see what is going on. I visited three times in the past three years, and saw Operation Clear Out Rubbish; I saw people having to abandon all their belongings as they were driven off who knows where.
John Bercow: I had a similar opportunity to visit in February 2004. I take the opportunity to invite the hon. Lady to pay generous tribute to David Banks, who once headed the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, and who is a tireless campaigner for liberty, freedom and justice in that country. He is a magnificent person who briefs a great many of us, and we should welcome his contribution.
Kate Hoey: I am sure that David Banks is the last person who would want to be thanked, but I know that he will appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, and all of us who have worked with him have benefited from his welcome support and knowledge of Zimbabwe.
The purpose of my last visit was to show solidarity with the trade unionists who, hon. Members will remember, were beaten up when Mugabe unleashed a brutal crackdown last autumn. I was able to travel throughout Matabeleland, north and south, Mashonaland, west and east, and the midlands. I visited rural and urban areas and met
people from many backgrounds. If people just go into Harare on business for a day, they might think that things are somehow normal in Zimbabwe, although it is difficult for anything to appear normal at the moment. It is important that we understand the deep-seated fear of such an absolutely brutal dictatorship. The regime has agents and informers everywhere, willing to betray those involved in any struggle for freedom.
The arrest of senior opposition leaders in March showed the shameless brutality of the regime. Many of those who were arrested are friends and comrades with whom I have shared danger during my visits, and many of them have visited Parliament and spoken at our meetings, such as Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamesa, Sekai Holland and Grace Kwinje of the Movement for Democratic Change; Lovemore Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly, who has been beaten up so many times over the years; Mike Davies of the Harare Residents Association; and Lovemore Matombo and Lucia Matibenga of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
I pay tribute to many of the British trade unions, which are taking a much greater interest in what is happening in Zimbabwe, and have hosted visits and support for the trade union movement. The list of people I mentioned is a roll call of those targeted by Central Intelligence Organisation agents and the militia in their systematic campaign of violence against anyone who poses a threat to Mugabe’s reign of terror and national destruction. We all saw the pictures of those people’s bloodied and beaten faces, and the brutal injuries sustained while they were recently in custody. They were shocking images. Even as we speak, and practically every night, somewhere in Zimbabwe the police or army are taking activists out of their homes. Many of them are never returned—their bodies are found later—and many are beaten up and tortured. There has been a systematic attempt, particularly during the past six weeks, to pick on people who are crucial grass-roots opposition activists.
However, those images were not shocking enough to draw any condemnation from the leaders of African nations. Mugabe has blatantly and unapologetically beaten and murdered people in Zimbabwe, yet he is still cheered and applauded by African leaders. It happened in May when he spoke at the Nairobi summit of COMESA—the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. I find that shameful. Getting rid of South Africa’s old regime was properly perceived as the business of the world, but South Africa’s leaders now dismiss Zimbabwe’s crisis as an internal matter to be tackled by the people of Zimbabwe.
Many people ask me, “Why don’t they just rise up?” One reason for Zimbabweans’ reluctance to protest on the streets and face the regime head on is that the Angolan, Mozambiquan and South African liberation movements knew that they had a safe haven in sympathetic neighbouring countries, but Zimbabwe is surrounded by countries that are either cheerleaders for Mugabe’s dictatorship or choose to turn a cowardly blind eye to the atrocities that he metes out to anyone who dares challenge his rule and his vanity. Zimbabweans who stand up to Mugabe’s disastrous rule should be welcomed with open arms as the front-line heroes of a new Africa. Instead, Thabo Mbeki defends the tired old men who have so miserably betrayed the dreams of their generation.
It is often said that politicians in the developed world must understand how they are perceived in Africa. However, African politicians must understand how they are seen in the rest of the world. One of our most important tasks is to help change international perception of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is far from stupid; he is a clever operator and he has manipulated world opinion, especially in the African region. He has also played on our memories of past struggles to paralyse progressive opinion, which should express outrage at what he is doing. We have to make it clear that it is as unacceptable to defend Robert Mugabe today as it would have been to defend Pinochet or Idi Amin in the past. I make no apology for saying that, unfortunately, Mugabe has been propped up by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and others in the region, who should be ashamed of themselves.
However, things are changing in South Africa. I was in Johannesburg earlier this year and I met representatives of COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, on the day of their central executive committee. On that day, they issued a statement, which said that the congress would not close its eyes when President Mugabe’s Government trampled on workers and human rights while blaming all his country’s problems on imperialists. It is a great step forward that the South African trade union movement has recognised the Mugabe regime for what it is.
We in this country could have done more, even in the recent past. I pay tribute to everybody who works in our embassy in Harare—it is not easy working in a country such as Zimbabwe—especially Andrew Pocock, our ambassador. I was disappointed by the response to our wonderful embassy’s recent recommendation recently that Chingoka, the chairman of the Zimbabwean cricket board, should not be allowed to take part in the International Cricket Council at Lords because he had benefited through huge amounts of money from the corrupt operation of the cricket regime in Zimbabwe. The embassy’s advice was that he should not be given a visa. To be fair to the then Foreign Office Minister, Lord Triesman, I must add that he wanted to stop Chingoka coming here. But a discussion took place, and I am afraid that the then Minister for Sport said that it would be difficult for the English cricket authorities if Chingoka was not allowed in. They ended up with the compromise that he was allowed in for the four days of the conference rather than a bit longer. There was therefore a small attempt to do something.
However, only a few weeks earlier, John Howard in Australia said what he thought. He told Australian cricketers, “You’re not going to Zimbabwe.” The Australian cricket board said, “Great. Fine.” The International Cricket Council could not fine the board because its Government had told the cricketers that they could not go. No money went to Zimbabwe in compensation, which meant that it did not reach the pockets of the corrupt people who run cricket there. None of the money reaches Zimbabwe cricket grass roots. Time and again, we appear to shilly-shally and use the excuse of being the old imperial power, which does not wash any more.
Mr. Benyon:
I have huge regard for the hon. Lady and her brave efforts on behalf of Zimbabwe. Does she agree that those who say that we should keep politics out of sport are missing the point? If a cricket team
from Vauxhall or Newbury went to Zimbabwe, that would be regrettable. If a cricket team from Berkshire or Surrey went to Zimbabwe, that would be undesirable. Once a player puts three lions on his shirt and plays for the national team, however, the game inevitably becomes political, and is used by leaders in countries such as Zimbabwe as an endorsement.
Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree. Even though the Zimbabwe first team is not coming here again soon, we could send an important signal by saying that we will not go. I would also like to add my voice to those who have called for sporting sanctions against Zimbabwe. If it was good enough to impose sporting sanctions against South Africa, it is certainly good enough to impose them against Zimbabwe.
During his recent state visit to this country, President Kufuor of Ghana, the chairman of the African Union, was harassed by some young Zimbabweans at a meeting at Chatham House, but he described what is happening in Zimbabwe as “embarrassing” to the AU. He then asked what more African nations could do. The answer is not necessarily that they should start doing certain things, but that they should stop doing them. For example, he might have started by not inviting Robert Mugabe to Ghana’s independence celebrations. We heard earlier about the extraordinary meeting of heads of state of the Southern African Development Community in Dar es Salaam in March to discuss the political, economic and security situation in Zimbabwe. The communiqué talked about how there had been free and fair presidential elections in 2002—an assessment that was not shared by the many international observers or by civil society in Zimbabwe. The communiqué made no mention of the parliamentary elections of 2005.
Mugabe and his African supporters have skilfully manoeuvred international opinion to get so-called engagement to be exactly what they wanted it to be. The international community was persuaded that the problem was an African crisis that needed an African solution, and handed it over to the African Union. The African Union was then relieved to hand over the hot potato to SADC, which then gave President Mbeki a feeble mandate to “facilitate dialogue”. We have ended up with a protracted process that merely buys time for Mugabe to continue plundering the economy and using brutality to persecute his opponents. I believe that Zimbabwe is in flagrant breach of the declared norms and standards of SADC. SADC nations should consider perhaps suspending Zimbabwe’s membership—but sadly, such a prospect is highly unlikely.
Nearly all the SADC countries are members of the Commonwealth, however. The crisis group report suggests that Commonwealth member countries in southern African should help to mediate a political settlement for a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe and set benchmarks for the country’s return to the Commonwealth. Let us not forget that when Nigeria and South Africa were out of the Commonwealth, this country still treated them as though they were part of it, and tried to continue dialogue behind the scenes. The Commonwealth should be doing more. Why is it not? Will the Minister say whether Zimbabwe will be on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kampala later this year? Indeed, have we asked it to be put on the agenda?
Too often, international experts are flown into Zimbabwe and hand out prescriptions without engaging with the local population. Zimbabwe is one of the most well educated and highly trained nations in Africa. The people have the necessary skills to rebuild the infrastructure of their own country. Massive international assistance will be needed, but that process must be led and implemented by Zimbabweans. There are encouraging signs that the Commonwealth will help to facilitate a partnership for reconstruction, commissioned by the people of Zimbabwe and accountable to them. I hope that DFID and the FCO will do all that they can to support such initiatives.
The Government should try to re-internationalise the crisis. The time is drawing near when, if there is no sign of progress when Mbeki reports back in August, our Prime Minister should convene a summit with SADC and other Commonwealth and European Union member states, to develop a co-ordinated international strategy of incentives and disincentives that will bring about change in Zimbabwe. They should sometimes include reassigning the aid budgets for other AU nations, especially those that prop up Mugabe, to bring home to them the massive costs arising from their inaction and complicity. We cannot go on footing the bill. My constituents in the inner-city area of Vauxhall are paying for Mugabe’s madness. This week, the White House would deliver a massive amount of new aid to feed 1.4 million people until the country’s next harvest in 2008. Last night, it was announced in the Lords that the Department for International Development was committing £50 million more to extend the protracted relief programme.
Ironically, however, it is international aid—the food aid provided bilaterally and by UN agencies without condition or consultation since 2001—that keeps Mugabe going. It has been unquestioningly supported by the donor nations of the developed world. By “unquestioningly”, I mean that the accepted wisdom of aid giving is that it is apolitical. Yet in this instance, a cunning regime has co-opted donor aid as a vital plank of its strategy of political control and oppression. I have seen for myself the way in which food was withheld from areas of the country where people had dared to vote for the Opposition.
In the Zimbabwean context everything is political, and the sooner the aid agencies recognise that, the better. We have to end the holier-than-thou attitude of the aid agencies that say that political considerations are beneath them. It is madness to commit ever larger amounts of our aid budget to dealing with symptoms without funding a cure. As we give this money, we should also give support to the trade unions and other elements of civil society that are starved of resources as they struggle to survive in Zimbabwe. How can we expect a vibrant alternative to the regime to flourish and be effective unless we give it the support that it needs? If we applied just a fraction of our humanitarian aid budget to supporting the very capable elements in Zimbabwe that offer a real alternative to the present disastrous regime, we might find that we could start to invest in the recovery of Zimbabwe, rather than simply providing sticking plasters for its bleeding wounds.
Benjamin Paradza was a commander in ZANLA during the liberation war, and he went on to become a
High Court judge in Zimbabwe before he had to leave. In an e-mail earlier this week, he said:
“A humanitarian crisis is brewing in Zimbabwe of a scale never seen before. What Zimbabweans need to know is not that the British government is giving humanitarian aid. Most of it does not reach the intended beneficiaries anyway. They do not want to hear that when things change in Zimbabwe, there is a rescue plan to kick-start the economy. Yes, all that is most welcome. Zimbabwe will undoubtedly need a lot of international assistance to rebuild the economy and other institutions. What they need most at the moment, as a matter of urgency, is some positive move by the international community, possibly through the UN, to rescue the people from this crisis. Never mind the noises Mugabe makes and will always make about recolonisation, or the old artificial notions of sovereignty and imperialism. Mugabe’s noises are just noises, well manufactured to draw world attention. This should not be allowed to scare the international community from the responsibility to protect (or to rescue) people under siege by tyrants like him.”
That is something that the Minister should be listening to.
I shall conclude—because a lot of Members want to speak, although not from my side of the House—by saying that external commentators and donors have been very prescriptive. They are keen to tell Zimbabwean Opposition politicians what to do. They are always saying that the Movement for Democratic Change must find ways of taking back into the mainstream those who have chosen to leave. This overlooks the fact that that might not be what Zimbabweans want. Democracy is about diversity, and it seems odd that in a struggle against a one-party dictatorship, we should try to engineer a one-party Opposition. In recent weeks, the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe met a delegation from the Save Zimbabwe Campaign that included leaders of three political parties, including Morgan Tsvangirai, who showed that it was possible to work together and to live with diversity. That should be welcomed as a much-needed development for African politics.
Finally, I would find it unbelievable if our Prime Minister, with all his commitment to Africa, were to allow any Minister of Her Majesty’s Government to attend any conference that Mugabe was going to attend. We should be putting pressure on the Portuguese presidency so that they do not even think of asking him, let alone have discussions—about which I discovered in response to my question yesterday—to seek “a diplomatic solution”. I am not interested in a diplomatic solution. I am interested in a solution that tells Mugabe right now that he will not be coming to any summit, and a solution that says to other African leaders that they will not be coming to any summit as it will not be happening if Mugabe is there. We need to get some of these African leaders to stop thinking that they can have it both ways: that they can talk to us about democracy, take our aid, expect us to stick up for them when there are problems in their country, and then turn a totally blind eye to what is going on, partly in their name, in Zimbabwe.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |