Zimbabwe: Assets Freeze and Travel Ban (Hansard, 16 March 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, the European Union agreed on 19 February 2004 to extend the list of those on its assets freeze and travel ban from 79 to 95 individuals. The United States assets freeze is on 77 individuals. The EU measures target individuals, not companies. The United Kingdom and other member states have taken the view that targeting companies risks harming ordinary Zimbabweans who are already suffering under the present regime.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But is she aware—from her reply, I think that she is that the American approach is now to target those companies that are helping to bank roll the Mugabe regime and companies that are associated in any way with the already targeted individuals? Clearly, that greatly increases the pressure on the Mugabe regime. Now the US has added the potential penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment or colossal fines for those companies that are involved with these unsavoury individuals. Is that not a much tougher approach than either the EU or HMG currently apply? Could we not follow the American example if we really are determined to end the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I certainly am aware of the differences, as I hope that my initial Answer indicated. There are differences in the regimes, although I would argue that in many ways the EU ban is more extensive in the number of individuals covered; for example, the head of the Electoral Commission, the head of the Media Commission and the leader of the war veterans. Those are very useful extensions made under the 19 February agreement.
134 The noble Lord is right: the United States ban does extend to companies. As I have said, we do not wish to extend the EU ban in that way because to do so would hurt those very Zimbabweans who we are trying to protect in the current very difficult situation. Having looked at this, officials are of the view that there is not any hard usable evidence against the business people concerned. The question of trade sanctions doing more harm than good to those who are struck by poverty in Zimbabwe at the moment is a very compelling argument.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, are not some of these businesses wholly owned by individuals on ours and the EU's banned list, such as Zvinavashe investments, Zvinavashe transport and the farms that are mentioned? Why do not the European Union and Britain at least consider the extension of our personal ban to businesses that are wholly owned by people who are already on our list?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, they are wholly owned by individuals on our list. They are covered because the individuals on the list are, indeed, covered by our list. The noble Lord's point is answered in his question. If they are wholly owned by individuals where we have already taken sanctions against those individuals, the point is covered.

Lord Renton
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what the United States Treasury will do if the Mugabe regime fails to co-operate in this matter?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham
My Lords, I am sorry. I did not catch the last part of the noble Lord's question.

Lord Renton
My Lords, what will the United States Treasury do if the Mugabe regime fails to co-operate in this matter?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear the point about co-operation. The sanctions that the United States is prepared to use are not available to me. Part of the problem is that the United States does have an unspecified travel ban. While its assets freeze is on 77 named individuals, the travel ban—this is another difference of which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is aware has not been published. The United States believes that it is more disruptive not to publish the travel ban, so that when people apply for visas they find it difficult to obtain them.

§ Lord Blaker
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that last Wednesday I referred to the speech made by the Prime Minister on 5 March when he referred to the Treaty of Westphalia, one of the principles of which is that the internal affairs of a country are for that country alone. He also said that we should not now tolerate the right of a country to oppress and brutalise its own people and that we should do all we can to spread the values of human rights, freedom and the 135 rule of law. At that time, I asked whether that applied to Zimbabwe, but I received no answer. Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to give me an answer now?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, of course we are interested in the human rights issues in Zimbabwe. How many times have we discussed in your Lordships' House those very issues? We give, for example, considerable aid to Zimbabwe. Its economic position is deteriorating very rapidly. We expect that 7 million people in that country will need food aid by April of this year. The economy of Zimbabwe is shrinking faster than any other economy in the world. It is an extraordinary thing that has happened to that country. Your Lordships will have seen, as I did, the truly ghastly television programme about the youth training camps. We are concerned about those issues. We are supporting civil society where we can. We donate considerable aid, not only for food and aid, but also to help those in civil society.

Lord Acton
My Lords, are we continuing to put as much effort as possible into persuading South Africa, where the key lies, into pressurising the ZANU-PF regime?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, your Lordships will know that this is an extremely difficult question. We have put considerable effort into persuading South Africa and, in particular, President Mbeki. On a number of occasions, President Mbeki has said that he believes that the two sides in Zimbabwe can be brought together. I am bound to say that we have yet to see evidence of that. President Obasanjo has been helpful in trying to bring the two sides together and in trying to pinpoint the obligations that Zimbabwe has towards its own people.
It is enormously important that we do our utmost to internationalise the problem and not to leave it as a bilateral difficulty that plays entirely into Mr Mugabe's hands of wanting to depict this as a battle between himself and the British Government.

§ Earl Peel
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the dilemma now facing the England and Wales Cricket Board about whether to tour Zimbabwe is becoming intolerable? Is it not time that the Government got off the fence and made a clear, unequivocal statement to the effect that, due to the deeply unsatisfactory political situation in that country, the tour should not go ahead?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Government are not on the fence. If it were our decision, we would not go. That is clear. But, as always, we have said that we have no power to stop this tour. It is a matter for the ECB to reach a decision. That is its decision. I am afraid that in all these issues there are responsibilities. We all have to shoulder responsibility. It is too easy to turn aside and say, "That is nothing to do with us because we are a cricket 136 association". There are responsibilities for everyone. If the noble Earl feels as passionately about it as he clearly does, I hope that he will get in touch with the cricket board and tell it what his views are, as I am perfectly prepared to say what our views are. I have been unequivocal about that.