Zimbabwe

HC Deb 03 May 2000 vol 349 cc149-62 3.31 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)

With permission, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quietly? We have been waiting a long time for this statement.

Mr. Cook

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

With permission, I will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. Yesterday, I attended the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group. I am pleased to report to the House that the meeting endorsed all our concerns. In particular, it recorded "deep concern" over the continuing violence, the illegal occupations, the failure to uphold the rule of law, and the political intimidation. It demanded fair elections, within the time required by the constitution of Zimbabwe.

The meeting agreed that the Commonwealth Secretary-General should visit Harare urgently in to bring home to the Government of Zimbabwe, and to make clear to the people of Zimbabwe, the concerns of the Commonwealth. I spoke in advance to most of the Ministers present yesterday, and I am pleased by the universal agreement that they gave at the meeting to our concerns. The outcome exposes the efforts of President Mugabe to pretend that only Britain is critical of the conduct of his Government. All Britain's concerns have now been supported by a body representing all the Commonwealth, chaired by one of Zimbabwe's neighbours.

A major reason why we received ready support yesterday was the recognition that Britain had taken every reasonable step to find agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe on a fair programme of land reform. At my meeting last week with their ministerial delegation, I confirmed that Britain was ready to help fund land reform, and that we were willing to take the lead in mobilising funds from other partners, such as the World bank, the European Commission and the United States. However, neither Britain nor any other donor is going to fund a programme of land reform unless it is conducted within the rule of law, is based on a fair price to the farmer, and reduces poverty among the rural poor who have no land.

Ministers in Zimbabwe have complained that Britain is imposing colonial conditions. There is nothing new about the conditions. They were all in the conclusions of the 1998 land conference, which was hosted and chaired by the Government of Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, last week the Zimbabwe delegation failed to give a commitment to bring the farm occupations to an end. I made it clear that, in those circumstances, Britain could not take further any support for land reform. Since that meeting, I have briefed Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition movement in Zimbabwe. I have also spoken to Mr. Henwood of the Commercial Farmers Union, which has welcomed the firm line that we took on conditions for any help with land reform.

If the Government of Zimbabwe are genuinely committed to land reform, the way is open for them to make progress with international support. I am sorry to say that the events of the past two weeks, and President Mugabe's inflammatory speech earlier today, suggest that the Government of Zimbabwe are interested in land reform only in so far as it creates a condition of crisis in which they can secure their re-election.

The whole House will deplore the mounting evidence of political intimidation of the people of Zimbabwe. Opposition campaigners have been ambushed and beaten up; commercial companies that display opposition posters have had their properties firebombed; rural communities have been threatened that it will be known which ballot box came from their village. By the end of the past month of election campaigning, 14 political activists had been murdered, all of them supporters of the opposition.

No election can be fair unless there is an election campaign free from intimidation. At our meeting yesterday we agreed that the Commonwealth should send election observers to Zimbabwe, and our statement stresses that they must be admitted as early as possible. At the weekend, I will be seeking the same demand from the European Union for early entry of European observers. Although the primary responsibility for ending the violence rests with the Government of Zimbabwe, the presence of international observers may help deter some of the brutality of recent weeks, and may give some confidence to those who want free expression for their views.

In the present circumstances of spreading violence, we have resolved that from today Britain will refuse all new licence applications for exports of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe. That will include all licences for spare parts in connection with previous contracts, such as the Hawk aircraft contract. We are urgently reviewing all existing licences for exports to Zimbabwe.

Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has suspended the programme to support the supply of Land Rovers to the Zimbabwe police. As a result, the supply of the remaining 450 has been halted, and will not be resumed unless there is a clear determination by the Zimbabwe police to restore the rule of law.

Britain is willing to help, in the right conditions, with the economic and land problems of Zimbabwe. Britain has also taken the lead in mobilising international pressure for free elections—but no Member will want to approach our discussion on the basis of President Mugabe's claim that the solution to the problems of Zimbabwe lies in London. It does not. Zimbabwe has been independent for 20 years, and President Mugabe has been in power for every one of them. In that time, he has already received over £500 million of development aid from Britain.

It is Zimbabwe's choice what its future will be. However, that must not be the choice of the Government of Zimbabwe alone; it must be the free choice of the people of Zimbabwe, through fair elections without violence, without intimidation and without fear. That was the united message from the Commonwealth yesterday. I ask the House to send the same united message today to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe who want to live in a free democracy, and to be protected by the rule of law.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement.

Zimbabwe should be one of the jewels of Africa—rich in natural resources, with some of the most efficient farming in the world, and with a judiciary that has remained robustly independent throughout the recent descent into lawlessness. Its people, who—black and white together—have lived in great harmony, have a vibrant desire for democracy. I think that we all admire the courage and resilience of those in the opposition parties who seem quite undaunted by a ruthless and systematic programme of brutal intimidation that has been countenanced, if not actually organised, by the governing regime. It is intolerable that a country blessed with so much should be brought to its current pass by the savage acts of one man and his acolytes.

As the Foreign Secretary said, everyone accepts that land reform is important; but, as he also said, this is not about land. This is about an ageing despot clinging desperately to power. Can the Foreign Secretary give a categorical assurance that he will not agree to further financial support for land reform without guarantees of lawful and ordered change, and until elections have actually happened?

I welcome the Commonwealth's decision to send observers to the elections to ensure that they are open and fair, but does the Foreign Secretary not think that the delays that have occurred in organising that may already have seriously compromised any elections that take place? The Foreign Secretary is aware—he said it—that much of the violence is geared towards intimidating voters in advance of polling day. Should not observers go to Zimbabwe now, rather than later? Should they not be headed by a group of senior international figures to make it as difficult as possible for Mr. Mugabe to ignore the ordinary requirements of democracy?

The House will be relieved that the Commonwealth has at last been mobilised to the cause. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his first move, which was to engage the European Union in pressurising Mugabe, was a false step? In many instances the European Union is the right vehicle for action, but it is hard to imagine anything more calculated to entrench Mugabe than the spectacle of all the former colonial powers ganging up together against him. It was always obvious that the Commonwealth was the right family of nations to take action. Why did it take so long for it to get involved?

We welcome the decision to suspend exports of military equipment. Again, why has it taken so long for that decision to be taken? Of course it is right to suspend the supply of Land Rovers; they are clearly not being used to protect the citizenry from intimidation—but why not stop all aid that goes to the Government of Zimbabwe? Obviously, we should not stop aid that goes to help people in communities, but we know that Government-to-Government aid has had a long record of being diverted by the Government to their own personal ends.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that yesterday the ministerial action group should at least have started the process of suspending the Mugabe regime from the Commonwealth to remove any veneer of respectability that still attaches to it, as many people in Zimbabwe, both black and white, wish? It is ironic that it was the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister who chaired the Commonwealth ministerial action group that suspended Nigeria from the Commonwealth in 1995.

Fifty years after decolonisation began, do we continue to make excuses for African dictators based on some misplaced notion of post-colonial guilt, or should we not believe today that African leaders should share the same values that African people deserve no more and no less than people from other Commonwealth nations?

Mr. Cook

I welcome the broad tone of the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the discussion, which is an improvement on our previous exchange. It is important that we should send as united a message as we can to those who are listening to the debate on BBC World Service.

I fully agree with a number of the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I agree that Zimbabwe's tragedy is that it could be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, yet currently has one of the greatest economic problems in Africa.

I greatly admire the opposition leaders who have shown such courage in recent weeks. I spoke, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the leader of the opposition when he was in London. As he has spoken to him, he will be aware that Morgan Tsvangirai has strongly urged us not to take economic sanctions against Zimbabwe precisely because it would play into Mugabe's hands by reinforcing his claim that Britain, not his policies, is the problem. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept that advice, as I have done, from someone who has shown great courage in taking on the authority of President Mugabe.

On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked, I can of course give him a categorical assurance that there will be no assistance for land reform without a return to the rule of law and without the 1998 conditions being met in full. Those, of course, require the existence of some form of democratic process and good governance within Zimbabwe. Therefore, I can also say that there will be no assistance this side of elections, which should in any event be held imminently; if they are to be held within the constitution of Zimbabwe, they must be declared by July.

Yesterday, we discussed in the Commonwealth ministerial action group the possibility of finding a senior, preferably African, figure to lead the observer team, who would carry authority within Zimbabwe and beyond it.

As for the engagement of the European Union, I know that Opposition Front Benchers have scant time for that body, but it is the natural and right place for Britain to start to mobilise the international community. If we cannot get the European Union behind us, who else are we going to get behind us? [Interruption.] I discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth four weeks ago.

The unanimous nature of the decision that we reached yesterday demonstrates the degree of successful lobbying at all levels in the Commonwealth. Indeed, concern has been expressed about Zimbabwe throughout the world. I particularly appreciate the strong support of the United States, and I welcome the mission that the Southern African Development Community sent to Zimbabwe. Its leaders know the extent to which the situation there could destabilise the entire region.

The right hon. Gentleman raised again the idea of suspending aid. However, much of the aid that we provide goes to the most vulnerable people in Zimbabwe. The largest single projects that we support are those that combat the spread of AIDS. As 25 per cent. of the population of Zimbabwe is already HIV-positive, can it really be sensible to pull the plug on those projects, many of which are necessarily undertaken through the Government because they involve health matters? If we were to take that step, the only result that I can perceive is that we might convince the people of Zimbabwe that President Mugabe was right, and that, when it came to solving their problems, Britain was an enemy, not a friend.

Finally, the rules for suspension from the Commonwealth are well set out in the Millbrook action plan, a document adopted by the previous Conservative Government and endorsed at the most recent Commonwealth meeting. The rules make it quite clear that suspension becomes an option only if a Government becomes unconstitutional. Nigeria and Pakistan had unconstitutional military coups. Much as we deplore the nature of the policies of President Mugabe, his Government are in power constitutionally—although that will change if elections are not held within a specified time.

I end on a note of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the chief burden of bringing home to President Mugabe the damage that his policies could do to Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa must lie with African leaders. Many of them know that the situation in Zimbabwe could start trouble in other African countries. They all know that it is in danger of creating a threat to investor confidence not just in Zimbabwe but in Africa as a whole. That is why many of them have expressed to me and to President Mugabe their concern at his actions. It is important that we work with them, and demonstrate to them both that we are willing to help and that the failure to reach agreement was not our failure, but that of the Government of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

The strong words of condemnation from the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union are indeed most welcome, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective pressure is likely to come from the creditors—both private and public—and from the region because, as he has rightly said, there is a real danger of destabilisation, a decline in investor confidence and a movement from the region of trained personnel who no longer see their future there, where their skills and that investment are desperately needed? Does he agree that at the forefront should be South Africa, which is the regional power that stands to lose most and is already a major creditor, particularly in terms of the debts owed by Zimbabwe to ESKOM, the power parastatal? Is he confident that President Mbeki is prepared to move from good offices and quiet diplomacy to rather harder and more effective pressure, given the likely adverse consequences for South Africa?

Mr. Cook

I welcome the recent statement by President Mbeki, well reported in the South African press, that there must be an end to the violence and the farm occupations. I have also noted the statement by the Deputy President of South Africa, Dr. Zuma, that the actions being taken in Zimbabwe are rather curious in that they are outside the constitution which President Mugabe himself helped to write. There is clearly growing pressure within South Africa, which is reflected in the statements of concern by its leading ministers about what is happening in Zimbabwe.

The situation in Zimbabwe is, of course, a powerfully legitimate national interest for South Africa. Zimbabwe is its major African export market. Already one car factory in South Africa has been closed, and collapse of the Zimbabwe market has been cited as the reason. It is very much in the interests of South Africa and of the other neighbouring countries that they assist us in resolving the political crisis in Zimbabwe, to pave the way for economic progress.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

I welcome not only the fact that the Foreign Secretary has made a statement, but the terms of that statement, particularly the announcement of the suspension of exports of arms and arms-related equipment. Perhaps I might acknowledge the creativity of the Government lawyers, who seem to have found a solution to the contractual obstacles that some weeks ago apparently stood in the way of such a suspension. That is entirely welcome.

Do we not have to recognise the unpalatable fact that the United Kingdom acting alone has less influence over events in Zimbabwe than we should prefer, which makes yesterday's statement by the Commonwealth all the more important? Was it not entirely sensible to invoke the interests of the European Union when it was expected to make a contribution to the funds necessary for the redistribution of land?

I also agree with the Foreign Secretary when he acknowledges the fact that realism dictates that the greatest influence over Zimbabwe will come from its neighbours, such as South Africa, whose economy is already feeling the adverse effects of instability in the region.

Is it not a terrible indictment of the Mugabe Government that they have embarked on that provocation of unrest when inflation is at 50 per cent., unemployment is at 50 per cent., and there are estimates that 25 per cent. of the population may be HIV-positive? Would not a responsible Government be turning their attention to those problems?

Mr. Cook

I yield to the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerning his expertise in lawyers' creativity, which never ceases to amaze me. He is right to say that acting alone is less effective than acting together. In the past month, we have therefore pursued a conscious strategy of seeking to mobilise international opinion. We have had universal support wherever we have turned for support and assistance in the matter.

I personally do not regret that acting alone we are less effective than when acting with others. That precisely underlines the fact that the problem is not Britain's alone, and that, primarily, it is not even the international community's problem. Primarily, it is the problem of the Government of Zimbabwe. It is their responsibility to resolve the crisis that they face.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman eloquently recited some of the telling figures and statistics of the Zimbabwean economy, and he was right on every point. I should add that Zimbabwe is totally bankrupt in foreign exchange, which is why it currently has an oil shortage and why—with the price of the Zimbabwe dollar set at a wholly unreasonable level in relation to international prices—it finds it difficult to persuade tobacco farmers to sell their tobacco. I agree with him that those are the real issues on which the election should be fought. I think that the truth is that President Mugabe and his Government are talking up the land reform issue precisely because they would rather not face those issues.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Did my right hon. Friend see the report in a Sunday newspaper that thugs from the ruling party went into a town, savagely beat five active members of the opposition, and displayed those five people before the town, obviously to intimidate others? Two of the five people are reported to have died. Those deaths and beatings are, of course, in addition to the murders and the intimidation of the press that has been occurring in the past five months.

Although I recognise what my right hon. Friend said about the Commonwealth, if the situation continues as it is, will there not come a time when it is totally unacceptable for that country to remain in the Commonwealth? If it does remain in such circumstances, inevitably the question will arise whether, other than in the case of a military coup, countries should be entitled to remain in the Commonwealth regardless of events such as those in Zimbabwe, with all the beatings, killings and intimidation that are occurring there.

Mr. Cook

I absolutely share my hon. Friend's concern about the beatings that have taken place against those courageous enough to identify themselves with the Opposition. There have been reports of teachers beaten up in front of their class and the pupils invited to go home and tell their parents what happens to those who support the Opposition. Actions such as those are wholly inconsistent with even the basic beginning of the concept of a free and a fair election campaign.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of the Commonwealth. Yesterday saw the first meeting that the Commonwealth has held since the crisis began. Therefore, decisions taken yesterday were the first decisions. Sending the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to express our deep concerns is very high up the escalatory ladder of Commonwealth action. However, I assure my hon. Friend that Britain is certainly not alone in the Commonwealth in our concerns. All the eight countries present yesterday share those concerns. They are widely held by members of the Commonwealth outside those who attended yesterday, and I do not believe that the Commonwealth will accept an outcome if its observers report continuing intimidation when they arrive.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I have immense affection and regard for Zimbabwe and its people. It is a country which I know well, and I believe that it offers greater potential than perhaps any other country in Africa for progress in the southern part of Africa.

I endorse everything that the Secretary of State has said today. Would he not accept, however, that the holding of free and fair elections is already compromised, and that without the involvement of people such as police from other African countries or from South Africa, under the leadership of President Mbeki and his recently retired predecessor, the chances of holding free and fair elections are minimal? That would be a tragedy, and the result would not be to the benefit of all the people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Cook

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, particularly as I know that he speaks from personal authority and experience. No reasonable person could disagree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that a free and fair election has already been compromised by the events of the past month. We are anxious to deploy international observers as soon as possible to seek to deter further political intimidation and to see whether we can create fairer conditions in the run-up to an election. It will be for those observers then to report on what they see and on the conduct of the elections. They are very much wanted by the Opposition. I hope that we can deploy them as soon as we can get agreement from the Government of Zimbabwe, without which we cannot deploy them. I hope that the observers will produce a more balanced election campaign than the one that we have seen so far. They will be free to report on the outcome and we will consider their report very carefully.

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

I, too, welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the sale of arms and associated equipment to Zimbabwe. How concerned is he about reports in African newspapers that the spares for Hawk aircraft sold by this country to Kenya are being re-exported from Kenya to Zimbabwe? Has he investigated this story and, if so, how does he propose to close that loophole?

Mr. Cook

I am not aware of the precise reports in the African newspapers to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to her about it. There is a serious problem that, in applying arms closures of the kind that we have previously applied to other countries, a black market springs up for the spares that already exist in large numbers around the world. I can therefore give no guarantee that the British Government can halt the supply of spares that are no longer within the control of the British Government or of British territory. However, I will happily look into the matter and consider whether a protest to the relevant Government would be appropriate.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

Further to the first point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), will the Foreign Secretary now acknowledge that his welcome decision to suspend the licences for the export of military equipment to Zimbabwe gives the lie to the assurances that he has previously given the House in relation to licences for the export of military equipment to other countries, including Indonesia, that he had no such power to suspend such licences?

Mr. Cook

A welcome from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is always warmly received, even if it is rather grudgingly given. On the parallel that he makes, the fact of the matter is that we halted new licences to Indonesia during the embargo. Today, I announced that we are to stop all new licences.

Mr. Howard

For spares?

Mr. Cook

All new licences, whether for spares or for new equipment, will be stopped. There are between a dozen and 20 existing licences only. Reviewing them is a totally different proposition from the 19,000 that we inherited from the previous Government when we took over at the general election.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to ban any further exports of military equipment to Zimbabwe. Is he aware of any other country, in particular a European Union partner, that may be trying to sell Zimbabwe such arms or military equipment? If so, will he make representations to ensure that the embargo is as effective as possible?

Mr. Cook

I assure my hon. Friend, who has raised an important matter, that we will draw the attention of all our European Union partners to the decision that I announced today. Under the EU code of conduct, we would expect to be consulted by any partner country that is contemplating a sale to Zimbabwe, although I am not aware of any country that is doing so.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

The right hon. Gentleman is right to want to ensure that the whole House speaks with one voice in condemning the action that President Mugabe is taking. I am certain that that is the case—on both sides of the House and in all parties—and it is important that Mugabe should realise that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take action on two fronts? First, will he clear up one matter? Were certain Ministers pressing Zimbabwe to go ahead with, or press for, a loan from the International Monetary Fund only a few weeks ago? What is the Government's position on that and on any other IMF lending that might go to Zimbabwe? Secondly, will he try to ensure that when the election comes, we get an absolute assurance that monitoring will take place with no restriction? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I were involved in monitoring the original elections in southern Rhodesia, which brought Mugabe to power. He and I know that, unless there is complete co-operation from the authorities, it is too easy to stop a proper and full monitoring exercise during the elections. It is imperative that we get an assurance that monitoring can proceed without restriction.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his bipartisan approach to the issue. On the question about the IMF, I must put it on the record—because there have been claims in Harare that are unfounded—that although it has been claimed that Britain is making the existence of an IMF package a pre-condition of our support for land reform, that is not the case. We are prepared to go ahead with land reform without there necessarily being an IMF package. Having said that, Zimbabwe plainly needs such a package. It has no foreign exchange reserves, so there is a severe fuel shortage, which is holding back harvesting and economic progress. Therefore, although it is certainly desirable that Zimbabwe should obtain a package, to do so it must meet the full conditionality of any IMF support.

Finally, on observers and monitoring, we must have two separate categories in mind: international observers to oversee and report what is happening; and independent monitors at polling stations throughout Zimbabwe, who should mainly be local residents. We are willing to help with their training. The United States has already offered a considerable sum to assist in training monitors. Working together, they may be able to create the free and fair conditions that are desirable, but, together, they will need to add up to significant numbers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Having led a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Zimbabwe in 1998, I very much regret the rapidly deteriorating situation in that country. I also regret that my right hon. Friend has had to make this type of statement, although I obviously fully endorse and welcome everything that he said, given the unfortunate position. I am sure that he recognises that many people in ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe do not agree with the position that Mugabe is taking. Will he spell out a clear message that now is the time for those people to stand up against the leadership of the party and, perhaps, to lead a new party forward to fight the elections?

Finally, can my right hon. Friend be absolutely sure that the Commonwealth and European Union observers we send in will have the freedom and security to go all over the country—to rural and urban areas—to see that the election is free and fair?

Mr. Cook

I fully share my hon. Friend's concern on the latter point. On divisions in ZANU-PF, my hon. Friend is right to point out that, from the information available to us, many in that party understand that present policies will not restore the economic situation in Zimbabwe and are thus likely to contribute to further erosion of support for ZANU-PF among the people of Zimbabwe. Indeed, in the primary elections, the official candidate was deselected in eight constituencies. It says a lot for the style of ZANU-PF's leadership that they have ordered the primaries to be rerun until they get the right result.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

The Foreign Secretary and his colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—who was busy elsewhere at the time—will recall the discussions 20 years ago. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the simple fact that the power of the British Government to influence events is virtually nil and that the action he proposes will merely give Mr. Mugabe a feeling of importance and significance that he does not deserve? Does he agree that the best course we can take to help the people of Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of Zimbabwe is to concentrate aid and assistance in the Republic of South Africa to help its people to build up their freedom, liberty and prosperity so as to protect them against the consequences of the serious problems in Zimbabwe? Does he accept that trying to be the emperor of the world will not solve the problems of Zimbabwe and its people? That is something which he and his colleagues should have learned a long time ago.

Mr. Cook

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall try to maintain the calm and measured tone of the discussion so far. In my statement, I said repeatedly that the responsibility for this problem lies in Zimbabwe. The country has been independent for 20 years and its Government must accept responsibility for its present state.

Had I not made a statement to the House, I should have been open to fair and justified criticism from the House. There is immense interest in what happens in Zimbabwe among the public and in the Parliament of Britain. Many people in Zimbabwe look with great care, and with some hope and anticipation, to see whether we share their concerns and whether we are worried about them.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

How many British passport holders are there in Zimbabwe? Are contingency arrangements being made to receive them in this country, should the situation in Zimbabwe spin out of control? Is it part of Mugabe's grand plan to get rid of non-Zimbabwe citizens from his country?

Mr. Cook

We cannot be certain how many there are—especially as we should have to take into account those who held dual nationality and were not solely British nationals—but the number is large.

When I heard President Mugabe's speech this morning, I was struck by one of the most purple passages, in which he leapt on press reports of evacuation plans for 20,000 British citizens. He told his rally that Britain was prepared to receive those people and invited ZANU-PF to show them how to leave the country. I ask the House to take that as a warning. It does not help to calm the situation in Zimbabwe or to defeat President Mugabe for us to engage in alarmist talk about evacuations. Of course, we shall take our position seriously and we shall consider what we should do, but no Member of the House should encourage alarmist statements about mass evacuation.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's comments on co-operation from other Commonwealth countries and the particular emphasis that he put on trying to secure free and fair elections in Zimbabwe—if that is still possible. However, if there is a continuation of the present programme of ethnic cleansing on the farms and of intimidation on the scale that appears to be going on in the country, does he agree that we may have to consider options that go beyond words and the cancellation of a few contracts?

Mr. Cook

We will take every reasonable and responsible step to make sure that our concerns are forced home, but I will not take actions that will be counterproductive and I will not take actions that the Opposition in Zimbabwe have asked me not to take. I suggest that the House listens to that advice.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend's view that a fair system of land reform must include, among other things, a fair price for the farmer and a reduction in rural poverty, but for the farmers living through deeply distressing times, more than that is demanded, is it not? Farmers who feel compelled to sell their home and farm should be allowed to take their assets and equipment with them if they wish to farm in another country. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that any funding agreement for land reform gives that protection to farmers who wish to emigrate from that bedevilled country.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend raises some reasonable points. To the extent that we find ourselves funding such a programme if the conditions and circumstances arise, we shall have to consider whether the money is paid within or outside Zimbabwe. Many of the farms are mortgaged to the banks in Zimbabwe. A policy of confiscation without compensation will rapidly produce further financial ruin for Zimbabwe, and not just for the farmers.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

As one who visited Rhodesia in 1967 and who has albeit distant relatives farming out there at this time, I share the Foreign Secretary's view that what is happening is an absolute tragedy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, Zimbabwe should be the jewel of Africa. I press the Foreign Secretary on the question of British aid for what he calls land reform, which is no less than the seizure—with or without compensation—of commercial, white-run farms. Given that those farms constitute one of the most productive assets of the Zimbabwean economy, and that they provide employment and security for a great many people in rural areas, how does the right hon. Gentleman believe that another penny of British taxpayers' money will benefit the rural poor? Before he agrees to another penny going down that particular plughole, will he tell the House what happened to the last slug of £44 million of British taxpayers' money and how much of the land that was taken from white commercial farmers and redistributed to Mugabe's cronies is now in productive use, and how much is lying fallow?

Mr. Cook

I am advised that about 3 million hectares have already been purchased under the land reform scheme, including £44 million that was provided from 1980 to 1990.

There is a real problem of poverty in the communal areas where there are people without land and it is widely accepted, and was not contested by the previous Government, that the programme for tackling rural poverty should include land reform on a fair and reasonable basis. As for farmers being forced to sell, 100 farms are already for sale. To be frank, many of those farmers would welcome a programme of land reform in which they could receive a fair price. It is bogus for the Government of Zimbabwe to pretend that they need further powers to force farmers to sell. There are many willing sellers. In the right conditions, they would welcome a programme under which those farms could be purchased.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

To probe a little further the subject of land reform, can the Foreign Secretary tell us of any country where large, privately owned, productive farms have been improved by splitting them up and giving them to small farmers? I suspect that he cannot. So why does he keep promising that, with the right conditions, he will spend millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money to ruin the farming economy in Zimbabwe? Surely he should say now that it is a failed policy which should not go ahead, and that we should put any aid into genuinely helping the rural poor rather than promise the kind of things that the Communist party used to promise.

Mr. Cook

I think that I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have not put in a single penny to land reform purchases whereas the Conservative Government whom he supported put in £44 million to the land reform programme. [Interruption.] As I hear from behind me, the landless poor in rural areas see that as the way forward.

I invite the House to step back for a moment. We have a perfectly proper international obligation to insist on the rule of law, to object when court orders are not carried out and to make sure that there is a free and democratic process for the people of Zimbabwe fairly to express their views. However, it not for us to say what the policies should be.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

President Mugabe first set this course of action a year ago and, last summer, I first raised the matter with the Foreign Secretary in the House. Why did it take until four weeks ago for the Foreign Secretary to meet the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to discuss this issue, and why has it taken until today to suspend arms exports to Zimbabwe? Surely, the Foreign Secretary could have acted sooner and could have had a real effect on the situation before it reached the dreadful proportions that we now see.

Mr. Cook

On the question of when I saw the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, I saw him four weeks ago, because he took up his post five weeks ago.

On arms exports, no licences have been granted by this Government for military equipment to Zimbabwe since the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo began. We resumed, under strict conditions, licensing in February this year and we have again suspended it. I have to say that what we did in the period between October 1998 and February this year appeared to have no marked effect on the policy of the Government of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

We all recognise how the breakdown of human rights in Zimbabwe affects all its citizens, but those of us with family members in the country are naturally particularly concerned about their safety and their future. Do the Government recognise a responsibility to advise those who have a right of abode in this country as well that, if the point is reached when their safety is threatened, they should come to this country? In the event of such a situation arising, do the Government agree that the first call on taxpayers' money should be not a land reform programme that would finally assimilate those Zimbabwean citizens into their society, but help for those who are forced out of that country against their will and who would regrettably have to return to this country? They would need assistance from this Government first.

Mr. Cook

Of course, the British Government take very seriously, and know full well, their responsibility to British citizens wherever they are. However, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I can think of nothing more likely to incite President Mugabe further to persecute British citizens than to say that we are ready to take them if the circumstances arise and that we will financially support them. Of course we will carry out our obligations, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we should not use language that President Mugabe will use in a speech tomorrow.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, but will he continue to ensure that he does whatever he can to avoid enabling President Mugabe to turn this debate and controversy into a battle between Britain and himself, because that may help him in his election?

Mr. Cook

I very much share the hon. Gentleman's objective. In everything that I have said, I have sought to make it clear that, although we have problems with the policies of President Mugabe and in particular with his adherence to the rule of law and democratic process, we are a friend of the people of Zimbabwe. In all that we do, we want to make sure that we assist them.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the cost of Zimbabwe's external troop deployments, notably in Zaire? Was that matter discussed by Commonwealth Ministers and would it be a material factor in the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman in deciding whether the Government should support—and, if so, to what tune—land reform in Zimbabwe?

Mr. Cook

The cost of the Zimbabwean Government's actions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is substantial. It is a point which we have repeatedly raised, and Britain was the only donor present at the 1998 conference in Harare to express concern about that and to say that the removal of that cost would assist in creating the economic and social conditions necessary for progress in Zimbabwe. I also raised the point with the delegation when it was here last week.