Zimbabwe: Human Rights (Hansard, 19 July 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, we received the executive summary of the report at the time of the African Union summit on 6 to 8 July. The full report will be available later this year, after Zimbabwe has responded to the observations about human rights abuses. We welcome the summary as clear criticism of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe by the African Union.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a damning report on the 4 abuses in Zimbabwe and on the activities of the racist regime there? Does she further agree that the way in which it has been handled, having been suppressed, it seems, for two years, reflects poorly on the African Union and on its aspirations, vision and strategy, which we all support, for a better and reformed Africa in the future? Is there any channel by which this can now be brought into the United Nations forum? Hitherto, the Government have taken the view that there are too many obstacles to bringing the issue to the United Nations, but this could provide the vehicle for doing so.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I agree that the executive summary is a full criticism of Zimbabwe on human rights. The noble Lord said that the report is damning, but I reiterate that I have not as yet seen the full report. It will not be forthcoming for at least another month, or possibly longer, in order to give Zimbabwe the opportunity to comment on what is said.
The African Union has pointed out to Zimbabwe that three reports are now outstanding on Zimbabwe's failure to comply over human rights issues, and it has urged Zimbabwe so to do. On the last point, the United Kingdom Government are considering taking an issue to the United Nations General Assembly.

§ Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, is it not a welcome sign that the African Union has commented so stringently on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe? We should be encouraging the African Union for doing so, since it is always under criticism. Does my noble friend agree that it is also important that the African Union has now said to African leaders that they can no longer expect a defence from the African Union where there are abuses of human rights?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Yes, my Lords, I strongly agree with that. That is why I said in my initial Answer that we welcome the report by the African Union. It is most welcome that it has spoken out in the way that it has. I remind noble Lords that the Zimbabwean Government, in the person of the Information Minister, last Wednesday accused the opposition Movement for Democratic Change of "smuggling" the report onto the AU agenda at the behest of the British Prime Minister. That is complete and utter rubbish, but it gives your Lordships an indication of how far the Zimbabweans are prepared to go in order to try to protect their backs.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, while it is unfortunate that the AU summit declined to publish the report on the basis of the false claims made by Zimbabwe that they had never seen it before, as well as the allegations by Mr Moyo that the Minister has quoted, and considering that the report is already two years old, should we not be looking ahead? Will the noble Baroness consider whether the G8 secretariat, which is preparing for the meeting to be hosted by the UK at Gleneagles in June 2005, might request its opposite numbers in the African Union to commission reports 5 from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, from the UNHCR on the 3 million exiles from Zimbabwe in neighbouring countries, and from the FAO and the World Food Programme on the starvation of Zimbabweans as a result of the economic policies of the Mugabe regime?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to point out that it is not just a question of straightforward human rights. There are also issues around the appalling economic situation in Zimbabwe, which has resulted in many of its people being put in jeopardy. The noble Lord raised the question of next year's G8. It is too soon to state with any certainty whether we will be able to focus on these issues next year, although I see certain attractions in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. One note of caution is that it is already the case that Zimbabwe believes that anything that has UK fingerprints on it can be discredited. We must be careful how we handle that.

Lord Renton
My Lords, in view of the way in which the people of Zimbabwe have now suffered for some years, has not the time come for the United Nations to be inspired to intervene there?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, we are considering whether it might be possible to pursue a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly this year. As the noble Lord will know, UN sanctions, which are binding on all member states, would require the agreement of the Security Council. Security Council agreement to such sanctions at this stage is not an option.

§ Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is it not important to reflect on the development of the constitutional position of the African Union? The ambition to have peer group review of sovereign states by other sovereign states in Africa is a recent development. It may be that we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope if we see only what they have not done. I agree with my noble friend in seeing what they are now developing as a role for the future.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Yes, my Lords, that is a fair comment. The African Union has a great difficulty in how it deals with Zimbabwe. There are clearly a number of differences of opinion within that organisation. It is important that at the end of the executive summary of the report the African Union notes that the republic of Zimbabwe now has three overdue reports in order to fulfil its obligations to the African charter. The African Union is laying it on the line in that way with the Government of Zimbabwe, and it is to be congratulated on doing so.

Lord Acton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the commission was chaired by an eminent South African academic? In the hope that this is a favourable 6 augury of South Africa's attitude, are the Government planning to hold talks about the executive summary, and ultimately about the report, with the South African Government?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as I understand it, the investigation team was led by the vice-chair of the African Commission on Human Rights, Mr Jainaba Johm of Gambia. However, it included a South African churchman and academic, Barney Pityana, who is the commissioner responsible for Zimbabwe, and, of course, Fiona Adolu of Uganda. Barney Pityana is the past chair of South Africa's human rights commission.
My honourable friend Mr Mullin will meet the South African deputy Foreign Minister on Wednesday of this week. I have not seen their agenda, but I believe that it is highly probable that the report will be discussed.

§ Baroness Park of Monmouth
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the African Union is undoubtedly to be congratulated on having tried for so long to bring the matter out into the open and face the facts about what is happening? Could it not be encouraged through the EU—not by us, I accept—to bring the matter, as the AU bloc, to the UNHCR meeting in Geneva? On previous occasions, it has prevented discussion there: this time, it could initiate a clear call for Zimbabwe to recognise the human rights of its people.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, that idea has considerable merit. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who has taken such a close interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
There may be some difficulty in trying to persuade the African Union to adopt the course of action that the noble Baroness suggests. Zimbabwe tried to persuade the African Union to withdraw the report altogether, on the extraordinary pretext that it was all a put-up job by the United Kingdom. It was supported by at least one other country in that endeavour, but, I am happy to say, they were overruled.
Zimbabwe now has the opportunity to respond to the report, and it may be that the response will overrun the period of the next meeting of the UNHCR in Geneva. The situation is still uncertain with regard to the point at which the report will see the full light of day. No doubt, when it does, there will be many people who are most anxious to discuss it.

§ Lord Blaker
My Lords, has the noble Baroness's attention been drawn to reports last week in two reputable South African newspapers of talks between the ANC, which is President Mbeki's party, and ZANU-PF, which is Mr Mugabe's party, about the future of Zimbabwe? In particular, they are said to have discussed co-operation by the two parties on preparations for the Zimbabwe elections next spring. If those reports are correct, do they not cast doubt on 7 the suitability of President Mbeki as an impartial interlocutor between ZANU-PF and the opposition in Zimbabwe?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I know that concerns have been raised about President Mbeki, but I remind the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki following South Africa's elections in April. The Minister for Africa has also had regular opportunities to discuss such issues with the South Africans.
President Mbeki and Foreign Minister Zuma have stated that negotiations between ZANU-PF and the MDC are imminent. However, the noble Lord is right: we would be more interested to see some firm evidence of progress in those discussions, rather than just reports that the discussions are imminent.