Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-109)
LORD MALLOCH-BROWN
KCMG, SUSAN HYLAND
AND STUART
ADAM
7 MAY 2008
Q100 Mr. Hamilton: May I move on
to the issue of Zimbabwe? We have finally had the announcement
of the presidential election result and it would appear that the
Movement for Democratic Change candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, won
47.9% of the vote. One has to question why it took nearly six
weeks to get that result. As we know, that falls short of the
50% required to win and there will be a run-off. There are various
rumours that the run-off will be either in the three weeks required
by the constitution or even in a year's time.
I know that Great Britain does not have a lot
of influence in Zimbabwe; in fact, we have quite a negative influence.
However, this is an affront not just to democracy, but to human
rights because of the way that supporters of the MDC are being
attacked, murdered and tortured. How can anybody, including the
South Africans, justify the view that this was a free and fair
election? More importantly, how can we act, not the United Kingdom
by itself, but perhaps with the EU or as a world community through
the UN? How can we show that it is unacceptable to masquerade
as a democracy and to abuse the human rights of ordinary Zimbabweans
day in, day out? We need to put pressure on Zimbabwe. What can
we do? Finally, are we going to withdraw the honorary knighthood
that was given to Robert Mugabe many years ago? That is trivial,
I know, by comparison.
Lord Malloch-Brown: We cannot
accept an outcome that is a perversion of democratic and human
rights values. The fact that it took them nearly six weeks to
count the vote leaves one very little confidence in the accuracy
of the vote. On the other hand, the fact that the MDC itself only
claimed a paper-thin win of 50.3% does not make it enormously
easy for us to stand up and say, "Morgan Tsvangirai won beyond
any reasonable doubt on the first round". We are all in a
bit of a dilemma in that there is no doubt that the cleanest constitutional
outcome of this terribly flawed, first-round process is a second
round that is adequately monitored both for the fairness and integrity
of the vote, but also for the conditions in the run-up to the
election, particularly the personal security of MDC supporters.
The first goal is with SADC, the United Nations
and the AU to say that, if there is to be a second round, there
must be a greater intensity of foreign presence there to make
sure that there is a reasonable chance that it will take place.
Q101 Mr. Hamilton: That is surely
highly unlikely. How can the international community ensure that
there is that presence? Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF simply will
not allow it.
Lord Malloch-Brown: We have to
set an international expectation and commitment to a certain standard,
which if it is not met—in other words, if observers are
turned away or there is not reasonable media access to the election—the
international community meets the logic of its own standards and
says, "This was not a free and fair election. We do not accept
the Government that have come out of that election". In other
words, we must prevent a situation when Mugabe can steal a second
round. If there is to be a second round, it has to be free and
fair. If that were the case, it seems inevitable that Morgan Tsvangirai
would win by a large majority. If it were not a free and fair
election, the international community then says, "Basta—enough.
It is over". We cannot allow a third alternative.
Q102 Mr. Hamilton: What sanctions
are there? We have seen the most appalling abuses of human rights
in Zimbabwe, yet the international community seems powerless to
do anything especially in the face of the South Africans supporting
the current Government.
Lord Malloch-Brown: In two regards,
the first round was quite a progress over the past. For the first
time at least since the '90s, Mugabe did not get away with making
the British Prime Minister of the day his real opponent. Last
time, there were apparently posters of Tony Blair in Harare. This
time, his opponent was Morgan Tsvangirai and he had to explain
himself on the economy and the political deterioration of the
country—and he lost. As a consequence, today it is no longer
an issue of Britain versus the world on Zimbabwe; it is Robert
Mugabe versus the world. Actually, there is a much higher degree
of unity in the international community on the matter than is
necessarily apparent publicly. We find tremendous support among
the regional leaders in SADC for the view that the result cannot
be allowed to stand. There is a preference on its side for a fair,
democratic second round to create the best constitutional solution
rather than aborting that process.
I do not hear from the South Africans or anyone
else that the situation is now just to confirm Robert Mugabe in
power. There has been a massive diplomatic shift, and we have
to build on that new alignment to make sure that the outcome is
that the Zimbabweans finally have a decent Government and we can
all invest in the recovery of the country. We are in a better
shape to get that than we have been for many years, not because
of the brilliance of the British or South African diplomacy, but
because ordinary Zimbabweans have basically surprised us all.
They had the guts and the chutzpah to vote for an opposition under
incredibly difficult conditions of coercion and suppression of
free speech and, despite the fact that between a quarter and a
third of the country had been pushed out into exile in the region
and could not vote, those guys won.
Q103 Mr. Hamilton: And the knighthood?
Lord Malloch-Brown: Obviously
this is just about the least-deserved knighthood out there. I
do not know what was in anyone's mind when it was given to him,
because it came on the back of the period when the massacres were
taking place in Matabeleland—the really big human rights
abuses were actually those killings in the `80s. But there is
an argument of time and place. At this moment, that runs the risk
of throwing us back into the old tracks of Britain versus Zimbabwe,
old colonial whatevers, and debts to settle. I think, time and
place.
Q104 Chairman: There is an outstanding
reply due from the Foreign Secretary to a letter I wrote on behalf
of the Committee. We look forward to that reply in the near future.
Lord Malloch-Brown: In fairness
to us, the letter came just last week. I know that it is a recommendation
that you have made before as a Committee. Perhaps we should have
seized the moment and done it then, but now is probably not the
most opportune moment.
Q105 Chairman: We look forward to
the response. I am conscious of time. We are going to go on only
for 10 minutes more. That means that we cannot cover all the countries
that we would have wished to. We will have to write to you on
some of them.
Why is Somalia, where there are serious problems
and human rights abuses, not listed as a major country of concern?
Linked to that is the role of Ethiopia—both what is happening
in Somalia, where Human Rights Watch talked about very grave abuses,
and with the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, where the organisation
also points out what it regards as an omission in the Foreign
Office report.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Obviously,
Somalia is covered in the Foreign Office report.
Chairman: Only briefly.
Lord Malloch-Brown: I would acknowledge
insufficiently—I plead guilty as charged. The extenuating
circumstances that I would point to, however, are, first, with
a report by a Government, we have a standard of evidence that
we have to satisfy ourselves is being met. In this particular
case, the allegations against Ethiopian soldiers—which form
part of your concern and have been made again this week—are
stoutly denied by the Ethiopians. I received a letter from the
Ethiopian ambassador just yesterday, asking to meet me, before
this hearing, to rebut the allegations. There was a statement
out of Addis by the Government in the same regard. We need to
look at the new claims and weigh them against the assertions made,
in order to meet our responsibility on the facts.
Let me just say that, even if we are guilty
as charged in terms of the report, we were very active in the
Human Rights Council in adopting a resolution on 20 March this
year for an independent expert and requesting the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen its presence
in Somalia in order to improve human rights work there. The UK,
also in March 2008, used the Arias formula at the Security Council
in New York to enable governments and non-governmental human rights
organisations not on the Council to speak at a Council meeting
on Somalia, precisely to raise human rights and humanitarian issues.
We have quite a good track record in general of trying to promote
NGO human rights concerns on Somalia.
If I may—forgive me, Mr. Chairman—I
have one strategic, structural point. The worst thing for human
rights in Somalia has been, over the past 14 years or so, the
absence of a Government. In that sense, our work with this admittedly
imperfect transitional Government, to help it both build up judicial
institutions and establish its authority, is intended to create
that very threshold requirement for human rights, which is state
institutions. We do not apologise for trying to do that.
Q106 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
will you confirm the Government's position on whether Israel's
policy towards the Palestinian population as a whole in Gaza of
interrupting energy supplies, and blockading food supplies, medical
supplies and other essentials of life, is contrary to international
law?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I certainly
will, in the sense that we have made repeatedly clear our extreme
concern about the humanitarian situation. The Foreign Secretary
has been in frequent touch with his Israeli counterparts about
that. We are willing to be a very generous supporter to Gaza and
are very clear that what concerns us, above all, is the current
failure by Israel to allow movement and access, and the squeezing
of energy and other vital supplies that are needed for Gaza. Of
course, that is as well as our objections to the continued construction
of settlements and the barrier in the West Bank. Let me also say,
for the record, that we are obviously equally concerned about
Hamas-sponsored rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. But
yes, we think that the actions by Israel are deeply damaging and
that they indeed contravene its obligations.
Q107 Sir John Stanley: Thank you.
As you have confirmed that the Government's position is that the
measures are contrary to international law, can you tell the Committee
in which court you consider the issue can be made the subject
of legal proceedings?
Lord Malloch-Brown: Our position
is clear. We have, on a number of issues, declared Israeli action
to be excessive, disproportionate and against international law.
We have chosen not to take the next step of saying which court
and under which terms, and we have no intention of sponsoring
any effort to take Israel to any international court. We do not
think that that would be the way forward, and we are extremely
nervous about the political symbolism of such an act. We do not
think that pursuing that kind of strategy would contribute to
the necessary building of trust and peace-building steps between
the two sides.
Q108 Sir John Stanley: Why would
it not be a perfectly reasonable step for Britain, along with
other members of the international community, simultaneously to
initiate appropriate legal proceedings against Israel for a clear
violation of international law, and against Hamas for an equally
serious violation of international law by firing rockets into
Israeli civilian settlements?
Lord Malloch-Brown: First, one
would have to decide which court and on which grounds. As far
as I know, neither Israel nor Hamas is a signatory to the International
Criminal Court, and I am not sure that the actions would even
fall within the ICC's jurisdiction. Even if you could find a court
that had jurisdiction, the issue really is that this is a problem
that begs a political solution. We would press for success with
the Annapolis process, backed by the Quartet, which put out a
good statement when it met here in London last Friday expressing
concern on exactly those points. An effective political process
with a strong political will behind it strikes us as the best
way forward.[8]
Sir John Stanley: None the less, perhaps
you could let us have a note as to your legal view of which court
could respond to a judicial application in respect of violations
of international law by both the Israelis towards Gaza, and Hamas
towards the civilian population in Israel.
Q109 Sandra Osborne: Your report
says that the pace of reform in Saudi Arabia will need to be acceptable
to its Government and religious leaders. That would meet the standards
of some of the most repressive and reactionary elements of Saudi
society. Those same authorities authorised the sentencing of a
woman to 200 lashes after she had been gang raped. Why should
changing this behaviour have to be acceptable to them?
Lord Malloch-Brown: This is more
a judgment that runs through the whole report and the British
Government's approach to human rights. We think that, in many
cases, the way to secure improvements is not by finger-wagging
alone, but by working with the grain of changes in such countries
to build up their human rights capacity in a way that Governments
who enjoy absolute power gain sufficient confidence to let go
of it and create space for independent human rights institutions.
In that sense, there are improvements in Saudi
Arabia. There have been announcements of plans to create new supreme
and appeals courts. There was the National Society for Human Rights
report, which highlighted a number of concerns. There is a new
royal decree allowing Saudi women to stay in hotels unchaperoned.
These are very modest steps, but they are going in the right direction.
We think that we get a bigger bang out of engaging in pressing
for reforms than by putting Saudi Arabia in the international
dock on this. When Kim Howells was last there in February, he
called on the authors of the NSHR report and raised individual
human rights cases with the Deputy Foreign Minister.
This is a process of critical engagement, not
of blind adulation and flattery. We have to ensure that such issues
are raised, but we have made the judgment that out-and-out opposition
will not do it.
Chairman: Lord Malloch-Brown, Stuart
Adam and Susan Hyland, thank you for coming today. There are one
or two other areas that we will pursue in correspondence with
you, but we have covered a wide range of issues and countries.
We have found this sitting very valuable. Thank you very much.
8 Ev 66 Back
| 
