Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Triesman: My Lords, Zimbabwe is a scar on all decent society and on all processes of democratic normality throughout the world but, fortunately, Zimbabwe is not Africa. It is one country in Africa which is doing very poorly by any civilised standard. We have continued to be clear with African leaders that they should speak out on Zimbabwe. Although Africa should not be held to ransom by that one country, everyone should say that Zimbabwe cannot get away with the kinds of activities in which it is engaged and that it does damage other countries when their great strides begin to vanish behind the events in Zimbabwe. We will not seek to harm other African countries in that context, but we look for the most general support in condemnation of Zimbabwe and its regime and for change there.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government not ask the G8 to form a group of eminent persons to go to Zimbabwe? That was done in 1986 in the case of South Africa, where they were given access everywhere. The eminent persons included not only representatives from Canada, the UK and India, but General Obasanjo, as he then wasnow President Obasanjoand John Malacela from Tanzania, who was proposed by Robert Mugabe and Kenneth Kaunda.
Is it not likely to be difficult for Mugabe to resist a visit by such eminent persons with the same object of initiating dialogue and reviewing the situation? Perhaps I may add that the South African regime at the time gave the eminent persons absolutely full access to the whole country. Could not Her Majesty's Government make that proposal at the G8?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think that the Government would want to rule out that proposal. At the moment we are working closely with the United Nations as the first line of approach. Our ambassador raised that matter with the Secretary-General and held extensive discussions on 10 June. That is an important initiative. We welcomed the decision of Kofi Annan to send Anna Tibaijuka, the executive director of the Nairobi-based UN-Habitat,
29 Jun 2005 : Column 243
as his special representative, to study the scope of the crackdown and its humanitarian impact on the affected population. I do not know how difficult or easy she is finding that mission, but that is the live mission and we all expect a very early report on her conclusions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, regardless of whether Mrs Tibaijuka manages to see those who have been displaced, the opposition MPs and so on, is the Minister aware that the African Solidarity Peace Trust has published an interim report, Discarding the filth, which provides graphic detail of the urban cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people and the suffering that that has caused? The report describes it as a crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Will the Minister therefore press his leader, who is attending the summit at Gleneagles, to get the states there present, including the African guests, to pass a resolution calling on the Commission on Human Rights to examine the crimes against humanity, as they did in Darfur, and to draft indictments against those responsible which would be presented to the Security Council?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am aware of the report which is very serious. Candidly, anyone who turns on their television on an average evening probably does not need to read another word. Everyone can see precisely what is happening and treat it with the degree of repugnance that I know is shared in this House. But before other steps are taken, we are eager to see whether the initiative that the UN Secretary-General has started can produce a result. We believe that it is likely to have a more compelling impact on the countries in the region that, regrettably, have been silent on the matter until now.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, picking up the theme of the problem of the silence of many African governments and, indeed, of the African Union, is it not a fact that the African Unionthe extension of whose role many of us want to supporthas moved from a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries to non-indifference? The African Union must take this opportunity for the sake of its own reputation in Africa. All of us are on the same side on this question.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that we are on the same side. It is true that it would be of great assistance if the African Union were to take steps that it has so far declined to take. Howeverin the fairness of achieving a balancethe African Union has not only deployed troops in some of the most difficult places in Africa; it has also assumed responsibility for trying to end some of the most savage conflicts. The progress has been significant. The progress on Zimbabwe has not been significant. I hope that we can change that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the words of my noble friend Lady Park about other steps,
29 Jun 2005 : Column 244
does the Minister recall our suggestion the other daythat in the absence of a full-scale UN resolution, we should publish a draft or sample UN resolution? I have in my hand a draft of a resolution requiring the UN to send a full-scale mission to Zimbabwe to examine the food horrors going on there. Would he like to see it? Shall I bring it round to his department afterwards?
Lord Triesman: My Lord, I am very willing to receive any draft resolution. When we have discussed this matter in the House on other occasions, we have recognised that a draft resolutionindeed, any resolution that might go to the Security Councilwould need to show that Zimbabwe poses a threat to the peace and security of its region. Other council members show no sign of accepting that. Putting forward a resolution and losing it would give great comfort to Mugabe, and that is the last thing any of us would wish to do.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the absence of any agreement at the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, what steps they will take to ensure that decisions are reached on the recommendations in the United Nations Secretary-General's report In Larger Freedom to counter the risks of proliferation.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the United Kingdom and other EU member states welcomed the recommendations of the Secretary-General's report In Larger Freedom in the EU statement to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York on 2 May. General Assembly President Ping recently released his draft outcome document for the millennium review summit, which is taking forward the work outlined in In Larger Freedom. We are studying the outcome document closely in order to contribute positively towards a successful outcome for the summit.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In the list of priorities for the September summit that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the other day, there was no mention of an objective in the non-proliferation field. Does he not think that that risks sending the wrong message? Does he not feel that it is time for Her Majesty's Government to take a more prominent role in trying to set up an international scheme for the provision of enriched uranium and reprocessing facilities to underpin a possible moratorium on the further construction of such facilities, which is one of the highroads towards obtaining fissile material for nuclear weapons?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is a great deal of merit in pursuing the course of action that the noble Lord suggests. However, across the report, there are
29 Jun 2005 : Column 245
very substantial areas and, as Kofi Annan said, if every one of them was a priority it would be hard to define priority effectively. I can confirm that Her Majesty's Government will support and commit themselves to implementing a new security consensus of the kind that the report calls for. We pledge full compliance with all of the articles of the treaty on non-proliferation as part of our approach to the conference. We resolve to bring an early conclusion to negotiations on fissile material cut-off and its treaty. We are committed to making sure that uranium enrichment and other processes are governed by international treaty and are used for peaceful purposes only. All these measures have the strong support of the Government.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is time for both questions.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since the nuclear powers are under a treaty obligation to negotiate in good faith for the total abolition of nuclear weapons, and since some of the non-nuclear states regard their failure to do so as absolving them from compliance with the treaty, is there a prospect that such negotiations might be opened, at least after some of the other steps my noble friend mentioned have been taken?
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |