12 Restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny (decision reported on 5 February 2014)
|
| Document details | Council decisions on EU restrictive measures against the Mugabe regime
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Document numbers | (a) (35761), —; (b) (35762), 6222/14, COM(14) 73
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
12.1 The two Council Decisions in question (which were adopted
in February 2014) incorporate the latest manifestation of the
"targeted measures" that the EU has taken against the
regime of President Mugabe in response to various "stolen"
elections and internal repression.
12.2 The first — the customary EU "travel
ban + asset freeze package", and embargoes on arms and internal
repression items — was introduced in 2004. As of February
2014 the "travel ban and asset freeze" aspect of the
measures has been lifted against everyone but President Mugabe,
Grace Mugabe and the defence parastatal ZDI (Zimbabwe Defence
Industries).
12.3 The second relates to the Appropriate Measures
permitted under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement when an ACP
country is guilty of egregious breaches of its Article 8 "good
governance" provisions. Council Decision 2002/148/EC was
introduced after the first "stolen" election in 2002.
The Council introduced them because of serious violations of human
rights and of freedom of expression, association and peaceful
assembly, and in response to attempts by the Zimbabwe government
to prevent free and fair elections, notably by refusing access
for international election observers and the media. They were
renewed annually over the following decade.
12.4 The main features of the Article 96 measures
are: suspension of budgetary support, and of financial support
for all projects except those in direct support of the population,
in particular in the social sectors and in support of the 2009
General Political Agreement; no effect on humanitarian support;
channelled exclusively through multilateral organisations such
as the UN and civil society organisations and not through Government
channels.
12.5 Council Decision 2012/96/EU suspended the application
of the Appropriate Measures set out in Decision 2002/148/EC. As
the then Minister of State for International Development (Lynne
Featherstone) recalls in her letter, the EU:
"suspended their application in July 2012
in response to progress on a range of issues by the government.
The Appropriate Measures have remained in suspended form since
(having been renewed in August 2013 and February 2014). At the
last review, EU Member States agreed that unless they saw a 'serious
deterioration in the governance and human rights situation', the
Appropriate Measures would automatically lapse on 1 November.
Member States agreed in February that a review before November
was the best approach given timelines for the EU's internal planning
for the 11th European Development Fund (EDF). The EDF provides
support to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries who
are signatories to the Cotonou Agreement."
12.6 When, on 5 February, the Committee cleared these
Council Decisions, it asked the Minister for Europe (Mr David
Lidington), who had submitted them jointly for scrutiny, to write
to us in October, when the House had returned from the conference
recess, to outline the direction that the review process was taking,
his expectations of the final outcome, and his views on it.
12.7 The then Minister now says that:
— in
early October, Member State officials and the European External
Action Service (EEAS), drawing on the advice of EU Heads of Missions
in Harare, assessed the situation as "stable but fragile",
and agreed that, "while there had been less progress than
we might hope for on a range of issues", they had "not
witnessed a serious deterioration since February, and in some
areas had seen improvements";
— as such, the conditions for renewing
the Appropriate Measures beyond 1 November had not been met;
— in practice, the lapse of Appropriate
Measures "would have no material impact on the way the EU
provides aid to Zimbabwe";
— the EU is planning to continue to channel
support through partners such as the UN and Civil Society Organisations
until 2017 at least;
— in November, she expects the EU to present
a National Indicative Programme (NIP), setting out a proposed
programme of support worth €234 million to Zimbabwe from
the 11th EDF in 2014-20;
— the average annual support for Zimbabwe
is envisaged to be €33.4million, almost exactly the same
as the annual average provided from the EDF between 2009 and 2013
(€33million);
— the EU is not proposing that any aid
goes directly through Government of Zimbabwe Ministries;
— DFID does not put funds directly through
Government of Zimbabwe systems and decisions on how EU aid is
provided have no bearing on the UK's bilateral aid programme to
Zimbabwe.
12.8 The then Minister also notes that:
"this is a separate decision to that on the
Restrictive Measures, which remain in force until February 2015,
and will also require unanimity of EU MS to renew. Colleagues
in the FCO (who hold responsibility for UK policy on Restrictive
Measures) will be actively reviewing these Measures in the coming
months, in close consultation with EU Member States. I understand
the FCO will engage the Committees as soon as possible ahead of
February and engage the EEAS to align negotiation and scrutiny
timelines."
12.9 We note that the then Minister has copied
her letter not only widely within the Government (to the Prime
Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the International Development
Secretary, the Minister for Europe and the Minister for Africa)
but also to the Chair of the APPG. We are again accordingly content
for interested Members to pursue any questions that they feel
may immediately arise from this determination via the many means
at their disposal.
12.10 For our part, we would have found it helpful
if the then Minister had given us some idea of where there has
been less progress than she had hoped for, and what improvements
she has seen and in which areas.
12.11 Looking ahead to the fate of the extant
Council Decision beyond February 2015, given recent developments
within the ruling ZANU party revolving around the future beyond
President Mugabe, whatever decision the Council comes to over
restrictions that now apply directly only to the President and
his wife, is likely to be controversial. In the Minister for Europe's
and his officials "engagement" with the EEAS, we therefore
look to him and them to make a reality of aligning "negotiation
and scrutiny timelines". There seems no reason why, as has
happened on previous occasions, matters should go "down to
the wire"; there would appear to be nothing between now and
the expiry date that is likely to change minds one way or the
other. We therefore look to the Minister for Europe "engaging"
the Committee no later than 8 January 2015. At that time, as well
as updating the Committee on the review process, we should be
grateful for his assessment of the political situation in Zimbabwe
and his views on the right way forward.
Full details of
the documents: (a) Council Decision amending
Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning Restrictive Measures
against Zimbabwe: (35761), — (b) Council Decision extending
the validity of Decision 2012/96/EU: (35762), —.
Background
12.12 The full background is set out in our Report
of 22 February 2012.[21]
12.13 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. The changes
in 2013 reflected EU commitments to respond to a Constitutional
Referendum in Zimbabwe on 16 March 2013 that was judged to be
well-managed and peaceful and, then last summer, the outcome of
the July 31 presidential and parliamentary elections.
12.14 Thus, in March 2013, the Council agreed to
suspend — though not lift — sanctions against 81 individuals
and eight entities; it did not, however, suspend the listings
of ten individuals, comprising President Mugabe, Grace Mugabe
and a core group of senior Zanu-PF officials prominent in the
operation of the security sector; it also left two entities under
active restrictive measures — the mining parastatal (ZMDC)
and the defence parastatal (ZDI). Then, after the July 2013 elections,
ZMDC was delisted in line with an EU internal agreement so to
do if the EU judged that it had not been involved in undermining
the free and fair conduct of those elections.[22]
12.15 Then, early in the New Year, agreement was
reached to:
— suspend
the "travel ban and asset freeze" aspect of the measures
against everyone but President Mugabe, Grace Mugabe and ZDI;
— extend the Article 96 measures until
1 November 2014, whereupon they would lapse unless there was a
consensus to renew them.
12.16 The Minister for Europe set out the Government's
position clearly (see our previous Report for details[23]).
Given the endorsement of the electoral outcome by the relevant
regional bodies and the fact that the UK had long been fighting
a rear-guard action against other, more accommodating Member States,
the consensus embodied in these changes was, we felt, no doubt
the best the Minister could have achieved. As he had said in an
earlier letter, the Government's lengthy and wide-ranging examination
of policy options included "a conversation" between
the then Minister for Africa and the chair of the Zimbabwe All-Party
Parliamentary Group (APPG). We were content to leave it to interested
Members to follow up any questions that they felt might arise
via the many means at their disposal, including the APPG.
12.17 In so doing, with regard to the Cotonou Agreement
Article 96 "appropriate measures", we asked the Minister
to write to us in October, when the House had returned from the
conference recess, to outline the direction that the review process
was taking, his expectations of the final outcome, and his views
on it.
12.18 In the meantime, we cleared the Council Decisions.[24]
The Minister's letter of 29 October 2014
12.19 The then Minister writes thus:
"As the Department for International Development
(DFID) holds responsibility for UK policy on Appropriate Measures,
I am writing to update you accordingly.
"Earlier this month, officials from EU Member
States, including the UK, and the European External Action Service
(EEAS) met in Brussels to discuss the governance and human rights
situation and agree the future direction of the Appropriate Measures.
Advice from EU Heads of Missions in Harare underpinned the discussions.
Overall, Member States assessed the situation to be stable but
fragile. All agreed that, while there had been less progress than
we might hope for on a range of issues, they had not witnessed
a serious deterioration since February, and in some areas had
seen improvements. As such, the conditions for renewing the Appropriate
Measures beyond 1 November have not been met.
"In practice, the lapse of Appropriate Measures
would have no material impact on the way the EU provides aid to
Zimbabwe. We know that the EU is planning to continue to channel
support through partners such as the UN and Civil Society Organisations
until 2017 at least (detailed plans beyond that won't be considered
until at least a year from now). In November we expect the EU
to present a National Indicative Programme (NIP), setting out
a proposed programme of support worth €234 million to Zimbabwe
from the 11th EDF in 2014-2020. The average annual support for
Zimbabwe is envisaged to be €33.4million, almost exactly
the same as the annual average provided from the EDF between 2009
and 2013 (€33million), although it should be remembered that
Zimbabwe suffered several humanitarian crises during that period.
"The EU is not proposing that any aid goes
directly through Government of Zimbabwe Ministries. DFID does
not put funds directly through Government of Zimbabwe systems
and decisions on how EU aid is provided have no bearing on the
UK's bilateral aid programme to Zimbabwe.
"As noted earlier, this is a separate decision
to that on the Restrictive Measures, which remain in force until
February 2015, and will also require unanimity of EU MS to renew.
Colleagues in the FCO (who hold responsibility for UK policy on
Restrictive Measures) will be actively reviewing these Measures
in the coming months, in close consultation with EU Member States.
I understand the FCO will engage the Committees as soon as possible
ahead of February and engage the EEAS to align negotiation and
scrutiny timelines.
"I am copying this letter to the Prime Minister,
the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary,
the Minister for Europe, the Minister for Africa and the Chair
of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Zimbabwe."
12.20 On 31 October, the EEAS issued the following
statement:
"The European Union will on 1 November take
a further step towards the normalisation of relations with Zimbabwe
by allowing the appropriate measures under Article 96 of the Cotonou
Agreement to expire.
"This step was set out in the Declaration
of 19 February 2014 by the High Representative on behalf of the
European Union, following the review of EU-Zimbabwe relations.
The Council unanimously agreed that appropriate measures would
expire on 1 November provided that there is no serious deterioration
in the governance and human rights situation. There has been no
such deterioration since then.
"The expiration of appropriate measures
will enable the European Union, for the first time since 2002,
to make multi-year aid commitments to Zimbabwe and to work with
the Government of Zimbabwe under the framework of the Cotonou
Agreement. Nevertheless, since 2002 when the measures were initiated,
direct assistance by the EU and its Member States dedicated to
the needs of the population of Zimbabwe has amounted to €1.5
billion, notably to support health, education as well as food
security and governance.
"The Government of Zimbabwe and the EU are
preparing a €234 million National Indicative Programme covering
the period 2014-2020, aimed at helping Zimbabwe become a more
democratic and prosperous country. It will support the Government
of Zimbabwe in its efforts to address the needs of the population
and to implement political and economic reforms. These €234
million allocated to Zimbabwe will focus on the sectors of health,
agriculture-based economic development and governance and institution
building. Implementation modalities will be defined jointly with
Zimbabwe and with EU member states.
"The EU remains committed to further enhancing
its engagement with Zimbabwe and looks forward to continuing with
its efforts in order to support progress in the consolidation
of democracy, respect for rule of law, and human rights. It will
engage in a comprehensive and balanced political dialogue with
Zimbabwe, based on article 8 of the ACP/EU Partnership, to foster
mutual understanding and to facilitate the establishment of agreed
priorities.
"The EU still maintains an arms embargo
and restrictive measures — EU travel ban and asset freeze
— against a limited number of persons and entities in Zimbabwe.
The next regular review of these restrictive measures will take
place in February 2015."[25]
Previous Committee Reports
Thirty-fourth Report HC 83-xxxi (2013-14), chapter
15 (5 February 2014); also see (35344), — and (35345),
—: Seventeenth Report HC 83-xvi (2013-14), chapter 23
(9 October 2013); (35129), —: Ninth Report HC 83-ix (2013-14),
chapter 21 (10 July 2013); (34846), — and (34847),
—: Third Report HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 23 (21
May 2013); Fortieth Report HC 86-xxxix (2012-13), chapter 8
(24 April 2013); (33645), 5820/12 and (33679), —: Fifty-sixth
Report HC 428-li (2010-12), chapter 12 (22 February 2012).
21 See (33645), 5820/12 and (33679), -: Fifty-sixth
Report HC 428-li (2010-12), chapter 12 (22 February 2012). Back
22
See (35344), - and (35345), -: Seventeenth Report: HC 83-xvi (2013-14),
chapter 23 (9 October 2013); (35129), -: Ninth Report HC 83-ix
(2013-14), chapter 21 (10 July 2013); (34846), - and (34847),
-: Third Report HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 23 (21 May 2013);
Fortieth Report HC 86-xxxix (2012-13), chapter 8 (24 April 2013). Back
23
See Thirty-fourth Report HC 83-xxxi (2013-14), chapter 15 (5 February
2014). Back
24
Ditto. Back
25
See http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/141031_01_en.pdf. Back
|
