Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
60-79)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
MARK LOWCOCK
AND MR
JOHN DENNIS
23 FEBRUARY 2010
Q60 Richard Burden: What kind of
conditionality would be applied if funding were to be extended?
Mr Thomas: We would want to make
sure that the assistance that is offered is being used to help
promote reform, is being used to help deliver pro-poor services.
Those would be the key conditions, as such. "Conditions"
is probably the wrong phraseology to use in that sense, in that
it has a resonance of the bad old days of structural adjustment
programmes. "Conditions" is not a term we would use,
in that sense. Certainly, in terms of the decisions we might take
about how we allocate aid in future, be it for a minister's office
or for a big programme of humanitarian assistance, we would want
to be convinced that it was helping to deliver a pro-poor agenda,
that it was going to lead to significant reforms in the way services
are delivered. Those would be, if you like, the guiding principles
for the decisions we might take.
Q61 Hugh Bayley: I want to ask a
question about support for a free and independent media. I should
preface my remark by saying that, if any government anywhere in
the world funds the media, you need to ensure that that there
is editorial independence and no control from the funder, as,
for instance, with the BBC World Service. I recall in the run-up
to liberation in both Namibia and South Africa there was British
funding for the Namibian newspaper, possibly for The Sowetan,
and it was seen as important to have some forums which were not
under state control disseminating information. The print media
in Zimbabwe is very strongly controlled by the state. I wonder
what thought both of your Departments have given to ensure that,
in the run-up between now and elections, whenever they come, there
is fair and unbiased information about electoral registration,
about the platforms of relative parties, the achievements of ministers
and their ministries. Is that something which your Department
should be funding or possibly the Foreign Office should be funding,
or both?
Mr Thomas: First, there is no
doubt that we would want to see reforms in the way the media operate
and are organised to allow more independent activity by different
media operations of one sort of another. The return of the BBC
is undoubtedly a positive step. Key to wider change in how the
media sector operates is the establishment of the media commission
as heralded in the GPA. Again, like the Electoral Commission,
it has not yet started doing its work, and that will be a key
issue for the international community to continue to watch. It
is certainly a key issue set out in the GPA where progress is
needed. In terms of the run-up to free and fair elections, absolutely.
A substantial programme of voter education would be required,
the media clearly would have an important role in that. If we
were asked to be part of a multi-donor group supporting an election
process, of course we would want to consider doing that. Again,
where we have been asked to enable elections to take place in
a free and fair way, we have provided support in other countries
to election funding arrangements. As I say, we would be happy
to look at that, if we were asked, when the time came.
Q62 Hugh Bayley: Given that the barriers
to the dissemination of information and the history of intimidation
are probably greater in rural areas than in urban areas, I would
have thought radio was a particularly important medium. Are you
satisfied that there is wide access to radio giving independent
and unbiased news across the country?
Mr Thomas: It is not just radio
where there is an issue; it is the media in general. There is
not free and fair access to the media in any way in which any
of us in the room would recognise. That is clearly one of the
areas, as set out in the GPA, where substantial reform is necessary.
Like others in the international community, we would want to see
progress in that area, not just so that elections can take place
but, also, so that the executive can be held to account regardless
of their political affiliation in that sense.
Hugh Bayley: One final question on culture.
DFID does not normally make the promotion of culture a priority:
you would defer, I suppose, to the British Council or others.
We held a reception at the Book Café and that seemed to
me to be an oasis of free expression.
Chairman: From time to time. When it
was not being disrupted.
Q63 Hugh Bayley: Relative free expression,
yes. There is a strong tradition throughout Africa of music—I
think of Fela Kuti and Miriam Makeba—permitting things to
be said which could not be published in a manifesto. Would either
of your Departments—yours through the British Council, Mr
Dennis, or DFID—think about providing unusually and atypically
support for freedom of expression through culture or arts?
Mr Thomas: I do not know where
the Foreign Secretary is on music. In terms of DFID, again it
is about the balance and the opportunity cost of providing funding
in one particular way as against others. You are right that freedom
of expression is hugely important, whether it is through music,
through media, through other sources of activity.
Q64 Hugh Bayley: We were given a
couple of booklets published by the British Council, which I thought
was quite a courageous bit of work.
Mr Thomas: Do not get me wrong,
I think the British Council does hugely important work. We are
contributing, along with others, in helping to promote freedom
of expression through the constitution review process, where UNDP,
with our support, have started to fund work that we hope will
allow civil society to engage in thinking about the type of constitution
and the type of state that Zimbabwe should have in the future.
That is one of the few ways at the moment—though it is very
imperfect, as you will, I am sure, have had a sense—in which
civil society and Zimbabwean citizens can begin to air views and
bounce ideas around about the future of their country. In that
sense, it is a hugely important process. It is not just us who
are funding it—it is being led, as I say, by UNDP—but
it is one way in which we are beginning to see some signs of growing
freedom of expression.
Q65 Mr Lancaster: Thank you, Chairman.
I want to explore slightly beyond Zimbabwe's boundaries and its
relationship with other countries in the region. Of course historically,
before 1994, when we saw the end of apartheid, Zimbabwe was very
much the centre for the region, but relationships with surrounding
countries have deteriorated to a degree, particularly those with
South Africa and Botswana because of the Zimbabwe diaspora. What
do you think surrounding countries can do to help in assisting
the development of Zimbabwe, not least when it comes to finding
a permanent political solution?
Mr Thomas: SADC, in that sense,
the group of Zimbabwe's neighbours, has a key role to play and
has accepted that role in terms of acting as guarantors of the
Global Political Agreement. It is encouraging that there is a
mediation process underway. It is a process I welcome but it is
very much a process that we need to respect, as SADC leading on
that process and fulfilling the role that it has. You asked me
specifically about South Africa. South Africa is probably the
country that has seen most migration of Zimbabweans who have fled
the country or have left the country into South Africa. Zimbabwe
is very much a domestic issue for President Zuma and the South
African government, as it is an international or a regional issue.
You are right to flag the continuing importance of the region
for resolving the political tensions in Zimbabwe. It is a process
that we are obviously monitoring closely, but SADC is very much
in the lead in that process.
Q66 Mr Lancaster: I agree with you
wholeheartedly, and I think SADC do have a key role to play, but,
given the Chairman's opening questions and the deterioration at
the moment, and notwithstanding that it is right that SADC should
take the lead, what more can we do in supporting SADC to try to
resolve some of these situations? Or should we not do anything?
Mr Thomas: First, we have to respect
the mediation process that President Zuma has put in place. He
has appointed a high-level team with significant reputations themselves
to lead on that mediation process and, despite moments of high
tension, which we all recognise will occur as the GPA process
moves forward, we have to respect that mediation effort that President
Zuma's team on behalf of SADC is leading. The other ways in which
we can help are more direct, frankly, and that is through our
development programme. It is important for the people of Zimbabwe
that there has been economic progress, and I think the economic
progress is beginning to throw the spotlight on to the lack of
political progress that has taken place in Zimbabwe. Through some
of the assistance to the Ministry of Finance and through our humanitarian
programmes we have played a small role, but an important role,
along with others in the international community, in helping the
stabilisation of the economy, and in that sense allowing the issues
around the political process and the lack of sufficient political
reform to be further highlighted, both for SADC to continue to
deal with and also for the government to continue to have to deal
with.
Q67 Mr Lancaster: Is it quite a difficult
tightrope to walk really? For example, when we were there, you
will be aware from all the talk in the papers that they had seized
on comments that the Foreign Secretary had made in the chamber
and they were being spun one way by one party and the other way
by the other. Is it quite a difficult tightrope to walk, where
on the one hand, everybody in this room, I am sure, wants to see
development and progression within Zimbabwe in helping to secure
that political process, but, as soon as we are vocal, it can sometimes
be counter-productive whilst at the same time trying to support
this process? Is that tricky? How do we find that balance between
the two?
Mr Thomas: That is not true just
of Zimbabwe, it is true of a whole series of relationships that
we have with countries. Sometimes, you are right, there is a tightrope
to walk.
Q68 Mr Lancaster: Are we getting
it right, I suppose is what I am asking?
Mr Thomas: Are we getting it right?
I think we are getting the balance right. We have a rising development
programme. We do continue to deliver tough messages to all members
of the Zimbabwean government, regardless of their political affiliation,
and we continue to look to the leadership of both South Africa
and SADC more generally to provide that on-the-spot mediation
work that they are doing.
Q69 Chairman: Taking The Economist
article, it describes SADC as a fairly spineless 15-member regional
group. Zimbabwe has already defied their court rulings. They have
just adopted another racist agenda which presumably would fall
foul of the South Africans. Mr Mugabe's attitude seems to be:
"I don't recognise SADC. It doesn't bother me. If it suits
me, I will pray them in aid, otherwise I will ignore them."
What can we do to persuade SADC to stand up for what it says it
believes in?
Mr Thomas: If SADC was not prepared
to play the role that it is playing, we would not have seen President
Zuma set up a high-level mediation group, and we would not have
seen that mediation group engaging in the very direct way in which
it has done. I do think we have to be careful not to respond to
some of the bluster from particular politicians in Zimbabwe at
the moment and allow the SADC mediation process to continue. On
occasion, we deliver blunt messages to all the members of the
Zimbabwe government when it is required, and we provide direct
assistance to help the journey of reform where it is appropriate
to do so. There is also this international effort through SADC,
and we have to allow it to continue to do its work and not be
put off, if you will forgive me for saying so, by particular articles
or particular comments by particular leaders in Zimbabwe.
Chairman: Nigel Evans.
Q70 Mr Evans: Thank you, Chairman.
President Zuma is in London next week for a State Visit. Do I
assume that yourself and the Foreign Secretary will be meeting
with him and, if so, that you will raise the mediation process?
Mr Thomas: It would be pretty
odd if he came to the UK and there were not conversations with
the Foreign Secretary and the Development Secretary. I am sure
there will be a whole series of conversations about affairs in
southern Africa, and Zimbabwe will inevitably be one of those
areas that gets discussed, but there is a broad agenda for the
State Visit, so it is not the only issue that will come up by
any means.
Q71 Mr Evans: No, I assume that other
things will be spoken about as well, but clearly his important
role in Zimbabwe is fully recognised by the world community.
Mr Thomas: Absolutely. We recognise
that he is playing a key role and we respect that. The decision
that he took to set up a three-member mediation team and to include
in that team some people who are extremely well-respected in southern
African politics was a sign of the seriousness with which he views
the situation in Zimbabwe, but those were decisions that he took
and we have to respect his leadership, given the importance of
South Africa to SADC. Obviously, as I say, we will talk inevitably
about Zimbabwe. It is one of the issues that will be on the agenda,
but there will be a whole series of other issues that we have
to talk through as well.
Q72 Mr Evans: I want to touch on
land reform, but before I do that the Chairman referred to The
Economist piece about businesses having a 51% stake by black
Zimbabweans. Does the Government see that as a racist policy?
Mr Thomas: With all decisions
in Zimbabwe, the key test is avoiding explosive language. The
concern we would have is more about the impact of particular policies
on the economy and on the people of Zimbabwe, so if it makes investment
in Zimbabwe less likely, if it reduces the chance of jobs being
made available, then of course it has to be a considerable concern.
One of the issues, as the Committee will recognise, as to why
so many people have left Zimbabwe is the lack of job opportunities,
so anything that prevents the private sector from beginning to
develop, anything that further discourages private sector investment,
is clearly going to be a major concern, but in the end this has
to be a decision that Zimbabwe takes for itself.
Q73 Mr Evans: But clearly it is a
racist policy. If you say that there are a lot of white Zimbabweans
living there and people who are not black Zimbabweans living there,
surely they should have an opportunity to be able to be a major
partner in whatever businesses exist within a country. If any
other country did this sort of thing, we would be banging the
table and saying, "This is racist."
Mr Thomas: We want everybody in
Zimbabwe to have equal economic opportunities in that sense, quite
clearly, but sometimes there is a way of recognising that a whole
series of reforms are required. I appreciate, Mr Evans, that you
might want me to use particular phrases to describe a particular
set of policies but, with respect, I am not going to do that.
The broad message is that there has been progress in terms of
the economy. We do not want that progress put at risk. We want
the economy to stabilise still further. That is going to require
a whole series of political reforms now to take place to create
the conditions for longer-term private sector investment to take
place.
Q74 Mr Evans: That leads me on to
land reform, which is part of the reforms that clearly are essential
to get some sort of progress and stability within Zimbabwe. Have
you seen the documentary Mugabe and the White African?
Mr Thomas: I have not, no.
Q75 Mr Evans: I would heartily recommend
it because our Committee has had an opportunity to see it. It
is quite startling exactly what pressures clearly are on white
farmers who exist within Zimbabwe. It is an incredible and very
moving documentary. Clearly a number of people have had their
lands grabbed, basically in a way that is not helping Zimbabwe.
One can understand the reason for reform—we talked to the
Commercial Farmers Union when we were in Zimbabwe and they can
understand the sense for reform too—but something that is
not orderly, something that is not structured, and something that
leads to so much farmland being taken out of production and, indeed,
then handed over to the cronies of politicians or friends within
Zimbabwe, clearly is not doing Zimbabwe any favours.
Mr Thomas: I would agree with
that. I would go further and say that not only do we condemn the
huge number of farm invasions that have taken place, but we have
seen terrible human rights abuses committed as part of those invasions
which are completely unacceptable, both on an individual basis,
the individual rights of the people affected, but also, as you
quite rightly describe it, in terms of the devastating impact
it has had particularly on the rural agricultural economy. Frankly,
"economic madness" would be an appropriate phrase to
use to describe that. I hope that that situation will desist.
We will continue to make that clear in our comments to the politicians
in Zimbabwe. It is clear that we do need to see a land policy
that is fair, that is pro-poor, that is transparent, because that
will, as you say, help to revive the economy, particularly in
rural areas. It would help to revive the agriculture sector. We
are a long way from that point at the moment, but we would stand
ready, as part of a wider donor group, to help in that process
if the political conditions were right. I suspect, frankly, the
first step would be for some sort of land audit to take place,
if the Inclusive Government were so minded, but, at the moment,
we are not seeing signs that there is a willingness by all the
parties to the Inclusive Government for a fairer land policy to
take place.
Q76 Mr Evans: They seem to be dragging
their feet on doing anything about a land audit, but clearly that
looks like being a necessary forerunner to making some real progress
in that area. You have just mentioned the international community
doing its bit, along with the United Kingdom, in trying to bring
some sort of commonsense solution to this issue. What do you think
the international community and Britain specifically can do in
this area?
Mr Thomas: As I have said, we
do stand ready to provide assistance, as part of a wider donor
group, if we are asked to. As I have said, the first thing would
be to conduct an audit of land. Frankly, we would only see a merit
in such an audit taking place if we had confidence that the information
that such an audit gleaned would be used to promote the type of
pro-poor, sensible, transparent land reform policy that most people
independent of some of those in Zimbabwe recognise as being necessary
to revive the rural economy there. We stand ready to help as part
of a wider international effort if the conditions are right. They
are not right at the moment.
Q77 Mr Evans: Even with the hyperinflation
that the country has gone through, a lot of white farmers have
gone to neighbouring African countries, as I understand it, and
set up businesses there and are doing rather well. I suspect that
Zimbabwe is importing some of the produce now of the former white
Zimbabwean farmers—which is clearly insane. Do you think
we are getting any closer to the political reality within Zimbabwe
that a solution should be found? Or do you think that the mentality
is still: no, we wish to right the wrongs of many generations
and we do not care about economic or humane consequences of what
the policy is that we are now doing in Zimbabwe?
Mr Thomas: Unfortunately, land
is one of those issues around which the political power continues
to be very heavily contested. As I described in my comments earlier,
whilst we have seen some progress in terms of the stabilisation
of the economy in Zimbabwe, we have not yet seen the major political
changes which the GPA has set out as being necessary. One of the
areas where we are continuing to see (to use a diplomatic phrase)
"unfortunate activity" is around land. I hope, as the
economy has begun to stabilise, that there will be recognition
in all parts of the Inclusive Government of a series of further
steps that need to be taken to help that economic progress. If
those political realities kick in, then perhaps we will get closer
to the situation that you describe.
Q78 Hugh Bayley: Do you not think
it would be helpful if the British Government were to acknowledge
that the terms on which white settlers, many from this country,
obtained land at the end of the 19th century and the beginning
of the 20th century was not fair and did not follow the rule of
law, and that the consequence for many indigenous people was that
they were forced on to marginal land and suffered enormously?
If we were to say that, then perhaps we would be in a better position
to oppose the wrongs of fast-track land reform and to move the
debate on to a position you were talking about, of pro-poor, rural
development—which is what Zimbabwe clearly needs—rather
than a return to settler plantations.
Mr Thomas: With respect, Mr Bayley,
I am not sure it would be helpful. I think I should take responsibility
for what we as a party have done since we took power in terms
of our aid programmes and our foreign policy since 1997. I am
not sure we should try to reach back all the time into history
to look at what happened a very long time ago. We need to deal—forgive
me for saying so—with the realities on the ground at the
moment. In that sense, the report that your all-party group produced
was very helpful in trying to put to bed some of the misnomers
that have existed around what happened in 1980, but, despite the
importance of that report, we should rather think ahead. We should
recognise, as Mr Evans has described, the continuing adverse implications
of the land policy which particular elements in the government
are pursuing from time to time and recognise that there needs
to be a comprehensive change in terms of land policy at some time
which needs to be led by the government in Zimbabwe, but which,
if the conditions were right, we would stand ready to support.
Q79 Hugh Bayley: I think you are
right to want to see a land audit, but if British money alongside
money from other donors is to go towards establishing land title
for poor landless Zimbabweans, how would you see that process
unfolding? In other words, how would you select the landless poor?
Who would get land? Who would you compensate?
Mr Thomas: Mr Bayley, with respect,
I am not going to go down that particular route. That is a process
that the government of Zimbabwe has to lead, and I hope it is
a government that would be elected in free and fair elections
so that it had a clear mandate. I have said that we would be ready
to help as part of a series of donors with such an audit if we
could be convinced that the information from that audit was going
to be used properly. We do not have those conditions at the moment.
We do stand ready to help, as I say, but we are not going to put
money on the table when, frankly, we know that there is a series
of other priorities where we can have a sense that our money were
to achieve good outcomes for the poor in Zimbabwe more immediately.
But we recognise the importance of the land issue and staff and
ministers will be ready to respond if the political conditions
changed.
|
