23 Restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
| (a)
(34846)
—
—
(b)
(34847)
—
—
|
Council Decision 2013/160/CFSP of 27 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
Council Regulation (EC) No. 298/2013 of 27 March 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No. 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
|
| Legal base | (a) Art 29 TEU; unanimity
(b) Art 215 TFEU; QMV
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 May 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 86-xxxix (2012-13), chapter 8 (24 April 2013); also see (34105) — : HC 86-xi (2012-13), chapter 21 (5 September 2012; and (34745) — : HC 86-xxxv (2012-13), chapter 21 (13 March 2013) and HC 86-xxxvi (2012-13), chapter 11(20 March 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | 27 March 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
23.1 After years of sanctions against the Mugabe regime, since
the formation in 2009 of an inclusive power-sharing Government
and an external regional process led by South Africa, the EU has
sought to perform a delicate balancing act, of keeping up the
pressure but rewarding progress. Latterly, the Council thus agreed
that, should there be a peaceful and credible Constitutional Referendum,
the EU should respond accordingly by suspending the assets freeze
and travel ban on all but a small core of individuals around President
Mugabe, particularly those who would most directly influence the
potential of violence in the next election. Such a peaceful
and credible Constitutional Referendum having been carried out
on 16 March, this Council Decision 2013/160/CFSP and Council Implementing
Regulation were accordingly adopted on 27 March 2013.
23.2 In earlier correspondence, the Committee
asked that, when the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
submitted his EM, he should say whether any of the delisted individuals
or entities was in any way linked to the financing, mining and
sale of raw materials. Instead, the Minister only confirmed that
the ten individuals whose listings were not suspended comprise
Robert Mugabe, Grace Mugabe, and a core group of senior Zanu-PF
officials who play key roles in the operation of the security
sector; and that the two entities whose listings were not
suspended are the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (whose
listing Member States agreed in February 2013 should be lifted
after the completion of free and fair elections) and Zimbabwe
Defence Industries.
23.3 The Minister also noted that that the majority
suspension introduced by Decision 2013/160/CFSP is valid in the
first instance until 20 February 2014 (the date by which the restrictive
measures themselves are due for renewal) but that — with
the two further crucial milestones of presidential and parliamentary
elections needing to be passed during the next six months —
it will be subject to review every three months. Since Decision
2013/160/CFSP does not expire at the three month mark, a Council
Declaration annexed to the Decision, and the Conclusions of the
Political and Security Committee[90]
of 22 March 2013, had been used to commit Member States to the
adoption of a Decision revoking the suspension at the three-monthly
review unless there is unanimous agreement that the suspension
should continue. "Any Member State will therefore be able
to collapse the suspension and re-activate targeted measures in
a minority of one every three months. This safeguard enables UK
officials to ensure an appropriate response should the situation
on the ground deteriorate."
23.4 The Committee kept the documents under scrutiny
for two reasons:
- awareness of at least one plausible
press report that the Mugabe regime was looking for unorthodox
sources of finance for the upcoming elections: so the Committee
again asked for information about de-listed individuals connected
to the mining industry; and
- concern about the further use of such unpublished
Council Declarations: it being, in essence, a case of the House
being asked to take the Minister's word that all is as it should
be, and thus inconsistent with the proper scrutiny of CFSP activity:
the Minister was therefore asked to explain why this provision
could not have been incorporated into the Council Decision itself.
The Minister's letter of 13 May 2013
23.5 The Minister says:
"I can confirm that the suspension does include
a number of individuals with connections to the diamond mining
industry, including the Minister of Mines, Obert Mpofu. During
the deliberations prior to the suspension in March these connections
were carefully considered. Inclusion of these individuals in
the suspension was judged consistent with our broader objectives
of using the Measures flexibly, to support the Southern African
Development Community facilitation process and to incentivise
reform in the run up to elections later this year.
"However, whilst we have suspended measures
against some individuals, both the mining parastatal (ZMDC) and
the defence parastatal (ZDI) remain subject to Restrictive Measures.
Between them, these two parastatals part-own all mining
operations that are currently operating in Marange (ZDI owns 40%
of the Anjin mine). As you are aware, the continued listing of
these two entities was the result of concerted UK lobbying during
the February negotiations. The active Restrictive Measures against
ZMDC and ZDI mean that restrictions will exist on all diamond
mining operations in the Marange fields until after elections
have taken place."
23.6 In response to our second question, the
Minister says:
"I am afraid that the Council Declaration is
a restreint document and as such the content of the document
is classified as restricted. This is the usual classification
for Council Declarations. Please be assured that there has been
a political commitment from all 27 Member States to end the suspension
of the Restrictive Measures at the three-monthly review point,
unless the situation on the ground justifies it being maintained.
Subject to classification issues, which I hope you will understand,
my officials and I stand ready to answer any further questions
that your Committee has on Restrictive Measures relating to Zimbabwe."
Conclusion
23.7 In talking about those individuals and
entities who have been included in the suspension process, and
about concerted UK lobbying to continue listing the entities,
the Minister hints at some of the differences there have been
among Member States about the fine tuning of these measures.
We presume that this is why it was decided to draw a veil over
them via the use of a Council Declaration rather than an overt
commitment embodied in the Council Decision. While this may be
understandable from other perspectives, having to rely upon a
Ministerial assurance continues to run contrary to the proper
Parliamentary scrutiny of such measures.
23.8 However, rather than pursue this further
in this instance, we shall do so via our present inquiry into
the scrutiny of European business.
23.9 In the meantime, we now clear these documents.
90 The committee of ambassador-level officials from
national delegations who, by virtue of article 38 TEU, under the
authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy (HR) and the Council, monitor the international situation
in areas covered by the CFSP and exercise political control and
strategic direction of crisis management operations, as set out
in article 43 TEU. Back
|
