§ 2 pm
§ Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making time this afternoon for this important debate.
The last time I spoke in a debate on Zimbabwe was on 15 July 2003. That was the day on which the all-party group on Zimbabwe was founded, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on setting it up, attracting interesting speakers and keeping the situation of Zimbabwe alive. In a small commercial plug for the group, I will say that at its meeting tomorrow, "Playing with Fire", a report from the Zimbabwe Institute—a South Africa-based think-tank—will be discussed. The report, which appeared in some of this morning's newspapers, reveals that Zimbabwe's Opposition MPs are among the most persecuted legislators in any so-called democracy in the world.
In July I said:
However, while we debate the issue, the situation in Zimbabwe worsens by the day and by the hour. I wonder, somewhat sadly and forlornly, whether we will be here again in weeks and months to come to debate the matter for the fourteenth time and to repeat the same impassioned, frustrated and desperate pleas, as we watch what was once the grain basket of Africa rapidly become its basket case."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 9W H.]Well. here we are again. This is the fifteenth time that we have held such a debate in Westminster Hall. Despite promises to the contrary, we are still waiting for the Government to initiate a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House to address the Zimbabwe question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us a definite date for that debate.Government policy over the past two weeks or so has been to brand everything that the official Opposition do as opportunistic. However, the Minister cannot level that accusation on this occasion because it is the Conservative party that has spoken up time and again for the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe, who continue to suffer at the hands of the despotic tyrant Mugabe. Indeed, the last time that Zimbabwe was debated on the Floor of the House was as part of an Opposition day debate on 25 June 2002, which w is opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is perhaps worth remembering the motion, which was
That this House deplores the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; condemns the continuing violations of basic human rights committed by the Mugabe regime; reaffirms the view that following the rigged presidential election in March the current Zimbabwean government lacks legitimacy; regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the EU to implement sanctions and exert effective pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and independently monitored presidential elections; recognises the growing politically-induced humanitarian suffering in Zimbabwe, and its effects on her neighbours; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take effective action to build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary, in line with the Harare Declaration, to restore democracy in Zimbabwe through fresh Presidential elections."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 803.]Unfortunately, it would be possible to propose almost the same motion more than 20 months later.384WH I want to be as brief as possible, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Equally, I hope that we will leave enough time for the Minister to answer some of the questions that we raise. I shall not go over old ground, but it is worth repeating that many constituents and other people to whom I speak simply cannot understand why, when we were so decisive and swift in acting to help the people of Kosovo, our only response to some 6.5 million Zimbabweans facing starvation is a fierce condemnation of Mugabe and his regime, and the promise to exert international pressure on him. Do we honestly believe that Mugabe cares that we do not like him—that he will be brought to his knees by empty rhetoric? The Government continue to stand steadfastly by that approach. Meanwhile, the situation deteriorates.
Replying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes in a similar Westminster Hall debate on 17 December 2002, the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, claimed that such comparisons between the situations in Zimbabwe and Kosovo demonstrated "a loss of perspective". That raises the question whether one group of people is more important than others. Our moral conscience led us to intervene in Kosovo and to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, yet when it comes to Zimbabwe we appear lacklustre. Where is the consistency in the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy?
The then Under-Secretary also stated that
Zimbabwe's regime needs to accept responsibility for its actions"—[Official Report, Westminster Hull, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 188WH.]Should we infer from that that the Government believe that Robert Mugabe is likely to have an attack of conscience in the not-too-distant future? He is, after all, the same man who in March last year proudly proclaimed,I am still the Hitler of the time.South Africa's quiet diplomacy, originally through the Southern African Development Community, has not worked. It is worth remembering the history of it. Following the collapse of the Abuja agreement in September 2001 the South African rand fell by 40 per cent. In all fairness there was then a hardening of the position against Zimbabwe in Government circles in South Africa. At an international investors fund meeting, a gathering of leading business figures and politicians spoke plainly of the damage that the situation in Zimbabwe was doing to the South African economy. However, one problem was that South African leverage over the Zimbabwean energy sector was thwarted by a $360 million deal between Colonel Gaddafi and Mugabe, over fuel.It would be interesting, and would contribute much to the debate, if the Minister could tell us whether, in the recent discussions with Libya, and in the context of its rehabilitation into the civilised world, he or his colleagues have had any discussions about Colonel Gaddafi's relations with the Mugabe regime.
Following the Zimbabwe election results, a senior British official said that the Prime Minister was sympathetic to NEPAD—the New Partnership for 385WH Africa's Development. However, if Mbeki rolls over on Zimbabwe, British domestic opinion may leave little room for manoeuvre. It was left to America to be firmer, with its Assistant Secretary for African Affairs stating that without South African condemnation of the election,
NEPAD would be a dead animal".Finally, as we all know, events led to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.It was surely right to build a consensus against Mugabe and his regime, but, as far as many African nations are concerned, the approach of quiet diplomacy has clearly failed. We were told by the Nigerian high commissioner last year that the issue is an African problem that needs an African solution, while the ANC in South Africa believes that it owes a debt to ZANUPF for its support against the apartheid regime.
Thabo Mbeki is culpable of appeasing Mugabe. Seeking his help is beginning to look fruitless. Referring to those countries that have openly advocated the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, President Mbeki has said:
For them, it was important that this objective should be achieved, to maintain their credibility especially with the media".Yet his indifferent approach has been roundly condemned. On 24 February the Kenya Times editorial proclaimed its opposition to Robert Mugabe and exasperation at Thabo Mbeki:Supporting Mugabe is tantamount to betraying the interests of the region. What is asked of Mbeki is not much. He is not asked to send troops across the Limpopo. What people want is for him to express his and this country's displeasure at what is happening in Zimbabwe.The South African Council of Churches has also sought to bring pressure to bear on President Mugabe. The SACC general secretary, Dr. Molefe Tsese, said in a statement:The people of Zimbabwe, especially the churches, have repeatedly told us that they are counting on us to assist them in finding a resolution to their acute economic and political crisis.… We will be failing in our moral obligation to be with them in their hour of need.The Democratic Alliance national chairman, Joe Seremane, stated that Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" on Zimbabwe had been exposed as an embarrassing and costly disaster.The International Crisis Group report "Decision time in Zimbabwe", published on 8 July 2003, also recognised the importance of Mbeki if the crisis is to be resolved diplomatically. South Africa must be the primary foreign actor that sits down with the two sides, helps them find the necessary compromises and applies its considerable influence to get them to accept those compromises.
Job Sikhala, a Member of Parliament for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and a recent victim of torture by state police, is less diplomatic. He said:
President Mbeki is a collaborator with Robert Mugabe in the crimes perpetrated against the people of this country. What `quietness' are they talking about? When we supported the African National Congress in their fight against apartheid, it wasn't 'quiet diplomacy'. And we are fighting a worse system than the apartheid regime.386WH Quite apart from Mbeki's ineffective political strategy, his country is being financially damaged by events in Zimbabwe. He may fear total anarchy in Zimbabwe and an even worse effect on South Africa, were he to come out against Mugabe. Nevertheless, in a Zimbabwe research Initiative published in May last year, it was estimated that a 9.9 per cent. decline in the rand over the past three years was directly attributable to Zimbabwe, and the economic impact has damaged economies across southern Africa, affecting interest rates, inflation, foreign direct investment and tourism. The Zimbabwe research initiative estimates the total cost to the combined Southern African Development Community countries to have been at least $1.88 billion by the end of 2002.Mugabe's reaction to international pressure is worthy of Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". Today, we read of suspected mercenaries landing in unmarked planes, armed with bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, army boots, sleeping bags and walkie-talkie radios, but no weapons or ammunition. The situation would be worthy of Evelyn Waugh if it were not so tragic.
In the meantime, Mugabe has set up secret camps aimed at brainwashing and training youths to undertake violence and administer torture techniques to enemies of the ZANU-PF party. The revelations about those camps following the screening of the BBC's "Panorama" programme on Sunday 29 February were extremely disturbing. The indoctrination and brutality in the camps is masked by the Government's propaganda machine. It is estimated that about 50,000 people have passed through the camps, but expansion programmes are planned and camp budgets have doubled so that all youths may eventually undertake the training.
Those young people are being mentally broken and forced to think like Mugabe—how to kill and how to apply the technology of pain. They are even made to undertake tests of dedication and loyalty by attacking and beating members of their own family. Not only is Mugabe violating human rights accords, but the future prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker.
§ Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con)My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for further action against Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Is he aware that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, is in London now and that he participated in the Commonwealth observance service at Westminster Abbey only yesterday? I was there and heard him speak. Dogs my hon. Friend believe that approaching Desmond Tutu, who played a constructive part in bringing about changes in South Africa, might be an effective way of increasing efforts around the world to bring about the end of Mugabe's tyranny?
§ Mr. SwireMy hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I would welcome the intervention of anyone of the standing of Archbishop Tutu or ex-President Mandela, who could raise awareness of the tragedy and bring people to their senses so that they sought a solution rather than waiting for something to happen.
Mugabe is violating human rights accords, and the prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker. It is too serious a problem to ignore, because a 387WH whole generation will grow up believing that inflicting rape and torture on their fellow citizens is not only acceptable but justified. As the documentary so aptly concluded, Mugabe is willing to convert a generation from innocence to evil.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for International Development for letting me know last week that it is now possible legally to exchange money at a more realistic rate, following the implementation of an auction system in Zimbabwe. People should now be able to get about 6,500 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, rather than the official rate of 1,500 Zimbabwe dollars. If the auction system works, it will be great news to constituents who have written to the about their wish to give money to charities in Zimbabwe but whose plans have been thwarted in the past.
On the subject of providing money to Zimbabwe, the Department for International Development has given the country £62 million in humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and it provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS. However, internal documents show that 89 per cent. of all EU aid to Zimbabwe disappears into the coffers of Mugabe's aides and his ruling ZANU-PF party. It is belated good news that the Secretary of State is to launch an investigation, as some of us have asked him to do for some time, but why is he doing so only now? What progress are he and his Department making in tracking down the misappropriated millions in aid that were given to Mugabe and his henchmen? What progress has the Secretary of State made on talks with the Governments of countries such as Malaysia? There is a strong feeling that much of the money might have gone to such countries to give Mugabe an escape route, should he need one.
We should welcome the imposition and, indeed, the widening of sanctions against the ZANU-PF leadership and the embargoes on the supply of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe. We should also welcome the EU statement that Ministers
deplored the degradation of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the failure on the part of the government … to engage in meaningful dialogue with the opposition and civil society".Will the Minister follow the lead taken by the United States in imposing sanctions on designated Zimbabwean entities, as announced by the US Department of the Treasury? Each of the seven entities that it has targeted is controlled by one or more key members of the Mugabe regime. Such action is not only effective but sends a welcome message to those who attempt to break the sanctions. That includes criminal penalties of up to $500,000 for organisations that do business with any of those entities. and the threat of up 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who violate the sanctions.How much mo re persuasion do the British Government need to do something? It is simply no good adopting the Herod approach of washing one's hands of the situation, or, indeed, wringing one's hands and saying, "Anything we, as the ex-colonial power, do will only exacerbate the situation." How, exactly, can the situation be exacerbated? Mugabe already accuses the MDC of being dictated to from abroad, and of being a front for the former colonial power, Britain, and for white farmers who oppose land reform. So what we have got to lose?
388WH Mugabe may go to Malaysia sooner rather than later, but we simply do not know. Although we want him to go, I hope the Minister will confirm that we will not be part of any deal that exonerates him or his henchmen of the blame for his corruption and human rights abuses. The Government must realise that, by not dealing with the mounting crisis in Zimbabwe, they are being irresponsible, and thus are partly responsible for the tragic situation continuing.
§ Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con)I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), not only for initiating the debate, but for the quality of his contribution. I agreed with every word that he said, and he has added significantly to the wider debate.
Having said that, I put it gently to the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard and whom the whole House holds in affection because of his distinguished record on human rights, that it is a pity that we are having the debate in Westminster Hall, not on the Floor of the House. In fairness to the Leader of the House. I must point out that he indicated, in answer to a question from me following the business statement last Thursday, that he hoped that there could be a full-scale debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, and that he was in conversation with the Foreign Secretary accordingly. Perhaps this Minister will indicate when that debate will take place. It will send a clear message, not only to the people of Zimbabwe, but to others whom we want to hear it.
On 17 December 2002, I initiated a debate identical to that of my hon. Friend. The tragedy is that little has changed: indeed, nothing has changed for the better, but a lot has changed for the worse. I want to pick up on a couple of points from that debate. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote quite extensively from one aspect of my speech, because it is so relevant to what my hon. Friend said. I said to the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is now the Minister for Trade and Investment:
I call for an expansion of the list of those targeted to cover the commercial supporters of the regime in Zimbabwe, who so far seem to have got off completely—the bankers and those who front ZANU-PF's economic interests, including safari operators. Many of those people are white and they benefit hugely from the regime. I hope that when the sanctions are reviewed their travel will be restricted…. The sanctions should be further expanded to include another layer of politicians and civil servants, including ZAN U-PF Members of Parliament and senior civil servants, who must be subject to the same restrictions as Ministers and Army leaders. I encourage the Minister also to ban their immediate families from travelling, including children and relatives who are being educated in the West. Some will say, `Ah, if we educate these people they will see that western democracy works, so they should be excluded from such a ban,' but I do not believe that that will happen. I am convinced that money looted from Zimbabwe, which should go into state education in that country, is instead going into private education in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere, and that is morally wrong. We should make it absolutely clear that no members of the family of anyone on the sanction list, including the commercial backers, will be allowed any form of education in this country.389WH The Minister's response was interesting. He said:The right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed concern about extending the various bans. I will consider that, and will write to him on that point.He never did. The Minister went on to say that Ialso said that we should consider the possibility of extending the bans to civil servants and some of their families, as well as to bankers. That is a useful point, and I will consider the feasibility of doing that and how it would work. Again, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396. c. 173–90WH]Again, he never did.It is a great pity that sanctions have not been extended. Sharp sanctions work; mass sanctions affect only the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. I think that we all accept that—I see the Minister nodding. However, the extension of sharp sanctions, which I called for in some detail in the debate that I secured in December 2002, has not been followed through with the United Kingdom and its allies in Europe and America. I am convinced that such an extension would be effective. I ask the Minister to address that point in his summing up. An extension of sanctions is vital. It is one of the ways in which we can bring more pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime.
There is a second way, which my hon. Friend described effectively: putting more pressure on South Africa. Those of us who love South Africa and who believed that it had a great future under President Mandela and his successor, President Mbeki, are having second thoughts. One has to be a brave person to invest in South Africa today. Much of its falling reputation is due to the way in which the President has handled the AIDS problem—he has ignored it completely, which is a matter for another debate—andthe way in which he has handled Zimbabwe.
South Africa is rightly the regional superpower, and it must take the lead. The lead cannot be taken by Botswana, Mozambique, or Namibia under its current President. Many of us also believe that President Mbeki's role has been entirely counter-productive. He urged our Commonwealth colleagues to allow Mugabe to go to the last conference in Nigeria. Mbeki seemed to be the odd man out in the council of the three wise men on the renewal of sanctions. He also urged us to be patient, and talked about "quiet diplomacy". That is fine, but how long do we wait for that quiet diplomacy to work?
Nothing positive has come out of anything that President Mbeki has done. The United States, the UK and our European Union partners must put much more pressure on South Africa. A long-term settlement is very much in South Africa's interests. It will give the region stability and investment and will improve South Africa's reputation.
My last point is that Zimbabwe sometimes falls off the international agenda. A debate on Iraq is currently being held in Plaid Cymru time on the Floor of the House. International terrorism, the middle east problem, and the invasion of Iraq by the United 390WH Kingdom and our allies, which I believe was right, occupy a great deal of time, but it would be disastrous if we did not push and prod and use sharp elbows to ensure that Zimbabwe is also at the top of the international agenda. I hope that the Minister will assure us that we are doing more to persuade our European partners to work together to increase sanctions, and that we are doing more to work closely with our American allies to the same end.
I should be fascinated to hear the Minister's answer to a point that my hon. Friend made about Libya, because the whole world has changed. One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the transformation in Libya, for reasons that we well understand. Surely Zimbabwe is an important by-product of that transformation, because the evil Mugabe regime has survived largely as a result of the cheap, perhaps even free, oil that has come from President Gaddafi.
Much more can he done, and I look forward to the Minister's positive response, followed by what I hope will be equally fine action.
§ Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on raising the subject today, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on his comments.
It is appropriate that there should be a debate about Zimbabwe in the House, albeit in Westminster Hall rather than in the main Chamber, during the fifty-third Commonwealth seminar, which is currently taking place here in London. I have had the privilege of participating in that seminar and of meeting and talking to many parliamentarians, including some Speakers, a number of whom came from Africa. They all, from their different positions, expressed deep concern about the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe. Although clearly many of them are discreet in the remarks they make, and correctly so, I have not yet met one who does not believe that the salvation of Zimbabwe can occur only when Robert Mugabe steps down, in whatever w ay he does so—whether to a bolthole in Malaysia or to any other country.
I am, however, distressed because our own country, the United Kingdom, played a part in putting Mr. Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. I regret that what started as a country with huge good will—one might almost say that it started off with the good will that Nelson Mandela, as president of South Africa, engendered. It started off with forgiveness, reconciliation and all the peoples of Zimbabwe working together. We know what has happened since.
I appreciate that our country, our politicians and my hon. Friends who have spoken so powerfully in this debate must not endanger the fragile Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who is facing treason charges in his country. It is rubbish to say that the leader of the MDC is guilty of treason. No one is more committed to aiding his country and his people than the leader of the MDC.
391WH However, we need to be cautious in what we advocate and in what we say, so that we do not in any way prejudice his position.
I hope that what remains of the independent judiciary in Zimbabwe will give Mr. Tsvangirai a fair trial and that he will be acquitted of all charges, because I do not believe that anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mugabe, believes that Mr. Tsvangirai is guilty of treason. He may have said a number of things about the current president but bearing in mind what occurred at the last presidential election, which in reality put Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai in the position of president, one can understand his frustration and concern about what is being done in the name of democracy.
I recently had a constructive and positive meeting with the Minister and I am grateful for the time he gave me and for his understanding of the serious problems of the country and of the sensitive nature of those problems. We need to look at new ways of bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration. How much longer can a country survive when half its population is on food aid? How long can it survive when inflation is raging at nearly 600 per cent? When will the basic stability of that country break down? Will it create civil war? Will the people lose their patience? There are many who hope that they will, because that is another way of toppling Mr. Mugabe.
As a friend of Zimbabwe, but no friend of Mr. Mugabe, as he will know, I say that we do not want that country to degenerate into chaos and disorder. We want it again to play a major role in the prosperity and economic growth of central southern Africa. Will the Minister respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon? Is there a way of bringing greater pressure? Is it possible to extend the ban on travel? Is there any way in which to put pressure on the few wealthy business men who are bankrolling Mr. Mugabe, in order to limit their ability to assist him and his regime financially?
My right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the position of President Gaddafi of Libya. I do not know how much he is helping Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration, but he has provided them with energy assistance, which is clearly beneficial. If my memory serves me correctly, President Gaddafi recently wanted to come in from the cold and join the world nations that seek to be responsible. What pressure, therefore, are Governments putting on him to minimise, or even to cut off, his assistance to Robert Mugabe?
People are dying daily in Zimbabwe. I know that because I have friends who live there and who are involved in business there—yes, there is still business and people are still doing their best to ensure the survival of the country, but with increasing difficulty. I ask the Minister what more we can responsibly do without undermining the position of Opposition parties, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change, to show the people of Zimbabwe that we are concerned for them and that we accept that we are partly responsible for Mr. Mugabe being their president. How can we help them to save their country from the further destructive actions of a brutal man?
Mr. Mugabe is over 80 years old. He must be aware that his time is short—if not in this world, then certainly as the president of his country. In one respect I do not 392WH go along with my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon. If Mr. Mugabe could be persuaded to move elsewhere, I would neither stand in the way of that, nor suggest that we should seek to bring him before a criminal tribunal anywhere. My concern is for the people of Zimbabwe—a country that I have been visiting for over 30 years. My hon. Friend was right to say that it was the bread-basket of central southern Africa, as it used to supply many of its neighbouring countries with food. It had stability and an improving infrastructure, and its health and education were dramatically improving, thus providing increased quality of life. Let us say to the people of Zimbabwe, "We want to restore democracy to you. We want to help you. We will give you aid, but we can't give you aid under the tyrant that you currently have ruling in Harare."
I beg the Minister, when he responds to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, to indicate what further action can be taken, even if some of that action is ongoing, quiet diplomacy.
§ Tam Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)I commend the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for securing the debate and congratulate right hon. and hon. Members with a long-standing interest in and commitment to Zimbabwe on their contributions. It is entirely appropriate that we should have an opportunity to return to such an important subject.
There are not opportunities enough, however, to condemn the Zimbabwean regime and the way it arrived in power through unfair and corrupt elections. Those elections have clearly had a heavy impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in Zimbabwe. If confirmation of that were needed, I received it yesterday in a telephone conversation with a Zimbabwean who is living in the UK but returns regularly and is in contact with friends and family. He said, for instance, that the inflation rate of over 600 per cent. means that a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe now costs the equivalent of 5p. That might not sound like very much to us, but for Zimbabweans it is extremely expensive. The view of the Zimbabwean with whom I spoke is that the issue now is not so much the availability of goods as their affordability for the poorest in society.
Hon. Members have mentioned Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Zimbabwe's closest neighbour, and the quiet diplomacy on which South Africa has embarked. Unfortunately, for many people quiet diplomacy amounts to silent diplomacy or even silent inactivity. South Africa can enable positive change in Zimbabwe, but has so far used its clout insufficiently. The Mugabe regime has repeatedly stymied attempts at meaningful engagement and formal dialogue with the MDC. Like other hon. Members, I praise the president of the MDC, whose leaders continue to press for peaceful change, despite being put on trial for treason.
Shortly before the debate—literally, minutes before—I had a telephone conversation with the secretary-general of the MDC, Professor Ncube. I asked him what the Government could or should do to help the position in Zimbabwe. He made some comments to which I hope the Minister will respond.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Foreign Secretary and I had a meeting with Professor Ncube this morning.
§ Tom BrakeI am aware of that. No doubt the Minister will be able to respond to Professor Ncube's four key points. First, the UK should exert all possible leverage against South Africa. Secondly, the UK should mobilise support for a human rights commissioner, which the EU backs, but which I understand South Africa has blocked in the past. Thirdly, the UK should support, as far as possible, civil society in Zimbabwe, especially Mugabe's victims. Fourthly, the UK should introduce sanctions against the entities that the US has identified as companies or farms with close links with ZANU-PF.
Professor Ncube did not call for general sanctions, but felt that sanctions against those companies could perform an important function. The US has designated seven farms or companies as specially designated nationals. Any US organisation or individual violating the ban on doing business with a Zimbabwean organisation on the proscribed list faces severe criminal penalties—not only fines of up to $500,000, but imprisonment. In other words, there are heavy sanctions against US companies or individuals dealing with those organisations.
As may be the case with other companies on the list, M & S Syndicate, which was the first ZANU-PF holding company, has a joint venture with the UK-based firm Unicorn Import-Export, called Zidco Holdings. Is the Minister happy with that arrangement? If the Government are considering taking action against the seven entities identified by the US, what sort of action, if any, might be taken against companies that, according to www.zimbabwesituation.com, have clear links with companies on the list?
Hon. Members are aware of the UK's heavy role in Zimbabwe. We are the second largest foreign investor in southern Africa. Although I accept that the current relationship between the two countries means that the UK's economic leverage is limited, there must be a way of using investment on that scale to support measures to improve human rights in Zimbabwe.
Will the Minister comment on whether there is a discrepancy between the promotion of human rights and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and UK Trade and Investment? According to Zimbabwe's country profile on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's website, there is a
chronic shortage of foreign exchange, which has led to shortages of fuel and other key inputs including power.The profile notes thatZimbabwe imports 35 per cent. of its electricity needs from Mozambique and South Africa",and I know that many people advocate South Africa turning off the power supply. Will the Minister comment on that way of exerting pressure?While the FCO sets out its concerns, the UK Trade and Investment website, which apparently has a policy of not promoting a particular export market, includes statements that, although not actively promoting trade, 394WH at least facilitate it in a way that the Minister may think inappropriate. Under the heading, "Key methods of doing business", the website suggests
The best approach to doing business in Zimbabwe is by making a personal visit, either on a trade mission or attending a trade fair. It's not uncommon for correspondence particularly to Government Ministries or parastatals to go unanswered.In other words, it is better to be there on the ground dealing with them.The website points out that, although the prevailing political and economic climate has resulted in reduced volumes of trade between the UK and Zimbabwe,
doing business is still relatively easy to do.It continues:With the Government in Zimbabwe keen to empower the indigenous population, foreign companies who have established a presence here or who have engaged a local partner would probably have an edge especially when tendering for Government contracts.It concludes:Advice on how to find an agent or details on how to set up a company in Zimbabwe is Available on the Zimbabwe Gateway.At the very least, such comments facilitate trade in a way that the Minister might consider inappropriate, for instance with Zimbabwean partners that may be listed by the Americans as entities with which they do not want their nationals to trade.On repression against politicians, other hon. Members have referred to the Zimbabwe Institute report, published today, which found that 50 of the Movement for Democratic Change's 59 MPs, and 28 of its parliamentary candidates, had personally experienced human rights abuses. Politicians are clearly under very heavy pressure there. Has the Minister had time to consider that report? He clearly has a copy, so perhaps he could provide some immediate feedback on what, if anything, the UK government propose to do about it.
There is also the problem of the attacks on the media.The Daily News was shut down, and pressure is now being applied to the Zimbabwe Independent. It would be useful to know what representations the Minister has received on that issue, what contacts there are with journalists operating in Zimbabwe—if any—and whether the UK Government and media can play a part in helping them.
I have taken up with the non-governmental organisations active in Zimbabwe the important issue of political interference affecting food aid. Their view is that the food aid that they are delivering is reaching the right people. They have checks and balances in place. However, there may be a question mark about the food aid that is being distributed by the Zimbabwean Government. Will the Minister comment on that, and more alarmingly, on any assessment that has been made about whether the NGOs working there or the Zimbabwean Government will be able to deliver the much higher level of food aid that is required? A posting on the UN website, ReliefWeb, states that the number of people going hungry in Zimbabwe has outstripped earlier projections, with 7.5 million of the country's estimated 11.65 million expected to require food aid in the next few months. Is there any evidence that organisations are gearing up to deliver that additional food aid?
395WH Finally, it is clear that the policy of quiet diplomacy, whether on the part of the South African or the British Government, is not working. We know that Thabo Mbeki protested last month that a decision to prolong Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth was undemocratic and unhelpful, while at the same time he brushed off concerns about human rights abuses there. It is instructive and heartening to note that that view is not held by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu or the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Charles Snyder, who said that the jury is out on whether South Africa has done enough to help to resolve the crisis. The Americans' view is that Thabo Mbeki could become the point man on Zimbabwe if there were a desire to do that.
The situation in Zimbabwe is extremely grim. As the secretary-general of the MDC said, the UK must use its leverage to pressure South Africa to take a stand against Zimbabwe's repressive regime. South Africa must not block plans to appoint a human rights commissioner for Zimbabwe, and the UK Government must increase support to civil society there, particularly for those who have suffered at the hands of Mugabe. The UK must also consider whether introducing sanctions against firms that have been identified by the US Government as having close links with Zimbabwe's top ZANU-PF officials would be appropriate. Zimbabwe's killing fields are unrolling in front of our eyes. We can either wait and, in years to come, express dismay at the uncovering of massive human rights abuses, or we can take action now. The Minister needs to set out which course of action he intends to pursue.
§ Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con)I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on his powerful and persuasive speech. It is not the first time that he has spoken so cogently on the subject of Zimbabwe. The speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) were also of the highest quality. They have both consistently spoken about the unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who probably has more experience and understanding of Zimbabwe than any other hon. Member in the House. I also applaud the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for his contribution to the debate.
Last December, in its annual report, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that it believed that
it is very important that Parliament remains fully focused on the latest developments, and that the profile of Zimbabwe in British political life remains high.I entirely agree. But how can we in the House be fully focused on Zimbabwe if the Government have not, thus far, introduced a debate on the subject in the main Chamber? In the seven-year lifespan of this Government, we have had many debates on foreign affairs, but we have not had a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time. Even today, we are debating the matter because of the success of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in securing the debate.The Minister knows of the real tragedy that is gripping Zimbabwe and of our links to that country, and has heard the powerful speeches today. I hope he 396WH will use his powers of persuasion, so that we can have a debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House of Commons. Everyone will then know that Zimbabwe is a matter of great concern, and that that concern crosses the party political divide. Moreover, the public will know that we in the House of Commons want to debate the matter comprehensively.
The Foreign Affairs Committee was right. It is vital that we remain focused on developments in Zimbabwe, which inexorably and distressingly continues to sink ever deeper into chaos, violence, brutality and economic collapse because of the malevolent and brutal rule of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.
We heard this afternoon that the agricultural base of the country has been destroyed by the illegal land seizures. Many farm workers, and farmers themselves, have been left devoid of any means of support. Since 1998. more than 400,000 jobs have been lost. Of a population of 11.5 million, 7.5 million are, to varying degrees, in receipt of food aid, and the UN World Food Programme is having to increase its aid provision.
However, the Zimbabwean Government continue to maintain that the land seizures have worked—they were the original basis for the unravelling of the country. The truth is that much land remains unproductive and idle. It is estimated that only 600 commercial farms are still operational across the country—a mere 14 per cent. of the more than 4,000 farms that were operational in 1997, according to the central statistical office figures. The shocking thing is that only 2 per cent. of land has actually been given to ex-farm workers, whereas much has been given to Mugabe's cronies. Earlier this year it was announced that some 400 farms were to be redistributed again from the black farm workers who had received them under the original seizures. The point about the hunger for land reform, which Mugabe gave as the spurious basis for his land seizures, is that the land reform has not happened at all. The situation is extraordinary, tragic and Kafkaesque. The picture is one of gloom and chaos. The so-called land reform programme has utterly failed to help its supposed beneficiaries.
The Zimbabwean economy should be flourishing given the abundant natural resources, the energy of the people of Zimbabwe and the country's historic reputation as Africa's bread-basket. We have heard some of the frightening economic statistics, with inflation at more than 600 per cent. and Zimbabwe's banks in crisis, we have read the recent comments of the governor of the reserve bank, and we have seen so much of the financial sector in collapse.
New laws, supposedly aimed at targeting those engaged in economic corruption, allow detention without bail for up to four weeks, and once again, after an all-too-brief reappearance,The Daily News has been forced from the streets. Although economic corruption in Zimbabwe must be tackled, nothing of the kind has happened and I am utterly unconvinced that the moves are anything other than window dressing. Moves supposedly against corruption have been made at the expense of the rule of law. A re-establishment of the rule of law and freedom of expression must be a priority for Zimbabwe—although I believe that it will never happen while Mugabe remains in power—and I agree with the appointment of a human rights commissioner.
397WH As we have continually forecast, the so-called informal and erratic talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF have come to naught. Substantive and genuine talks must remain a pre-condition to moving on and to Zimbabwe's readmission to the Commonwealth, as its secretary-general Mr. McKinnon recently stated. ZANU-PF must engage in genuine, formal and structured talks with the MDC to that end, but I fear that that will never happen under Mr. Mugabe. He is obsessed with protecting himself from the consequences of leaving office, and I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for should Mr. Mugabe want to leave the country in one way or another, he should be assisted in that process, as happened with a former African dictator, Idi Amin.
§ Tom BrakeI hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Mugabe leaving the country. However, if he did that, there would have to be a detailed analysis of any funds that he might have salted away.
§ Mr. SpringThere is clear evidence that that has happened, and we have seen the grotesque extravagance of Mr. Mugabe and his family when he has been allowed to travel in Europe and elsewhere.
Mugabe will seize any opportunity to cling to power and boost his position with propaganda, and it is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called on the England and Wales Cricket Board not to go ahead with a Zimbabwe tour. As he said,
I would never …leave England's captain in the intolerable position of having to shake the bloodied hand of Zimbabwe's cricket patron, Robert Mugabe.We have made our views on that point crystal clear, and I would be grateful—I am sure the ECB would be even more grateful—if the Minister stated unequivocally, on behalf of the Government, whether he believes that the tour should proceed.To wait for demography or the anger of people to topple Mugabe would be to wait too long, considering what is happening and because, regrettably, such a prospect is not likely in the near future. As we see Zimbabwe ever falling into despair and misery, to wait for a reaction to Mugabe from within is to shirk our obligations to the Zimbabwean people.
The EU recently decided to extend the targeted sanctions for a third year, increasing the list of individuals covered from 79 to 95 people. The travel bans and asset freezes for which we called for so long are a welcome start, but they must be rigorously enforced and extended to the businesses and individuals that bankroll the Mugabe regime. The US recently introduced new and tougher sanctions to target Government-owned companies and the Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo.
Why are our Government reluctant to take an even tougher line and follow the US example? When will we see the Government seeking to internationalise the issue even more, taking the matter to the UN Security Council to obtain a resolution to try to place food monitors on the ground? There is no point in saying that such a resolution would not be passed. If a country does not table and argue for a resolution, it will never happen.
398WH Thus there is still much to do to improve on what is already being done. Alongside increased pressure from the United Kingdom and the European Union there must be increased regional pressure. All hon. Members have alluded to that this afternoon. The regional power most able to do this, and with a real interest in doing so, given the knock-on effects of collapse, is South Africa.
I had the pleasure some months ago of meeting Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo. He was reported as calling on President Mbeki's Government to cut off electricity supplies to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is dependent upon South Africa for much of its fuel and energy and, as was demonstrated against Ian Smith in comparable circumstances, South Africa could very quickly effect a change by cutting off supplies. It took only three days to be effective before, and a short sharp ratcheting up may well prove ultimately more effective, and less painful to Zimbabweans.
We have put that directly to the South Africans on many occasions. President Mbeki still appears to think that quiet diplomacy will work in respect of Zimbabwe, but thus far it has paid no dividends at all, and the recent collapse of talks show that it has failed to achieve any progress. Those who called for patience as quiet diplomacy proceeded have been led well and truly up the garden path.
While I naturally have concerns on humanitarian grounds about the short-term impact of an energy cutoff on the Zimbabwean people, here we have a Zimbabwean archbishop calling for it. I believe that it is incumbent on the South African Government to give such ideas urgent consideration. I hope the Minister will encourage the South Africans to consider all options afresh, to persuade them to take a more proactive approach to their northern neighbour. We have told them this before. The economies of southern Africa are dependent in large part upon external investors, who look for stability and security for their investments. The situation in Zimbabwe ultimately puts that confidence at risk. The South African Government should consider all these factors most urgently in the context of their role as a regional power.
In a powerful and, in many ways, impressive speech that the Prime Minister made on 5 March, he said:
It may well be that under international law as previously constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe".He went on to talk about the values that must surround a doctrine of international community when a country behaves in an utterly irresponsible and wicked way. He spoke about a new arrangement in the world to react to that. He said:Britain's role is try to trod a way through this: to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and means of enforcing it.I very much agree with what the Prime Minister said, but I believe that in the case of Zimbabwe those words need to be translated into more direct action. Sometimes we have to be blunt with our friends whom we admire and with whom we have historic links. We have to tell that they must take action themselves and that we will support them in that. We have never suggested that solving the crisis in Zimbabwe would be easy or could be 399WH accomplished overnight, but there will certainly not be progress if we do not move the process on more forcefully. A start has been made with targeted sanctions, but it seems to have stopped there. We must ratchet up pressure on Mugabe's regime through the EU, the UN and through close working contacts with the neighbouring states.I hope the Minister can give us concrete examples of the steps that the Government intend to take to end the suffering of Zimbabwe's people and to bring about free and fair elections. Occasionally, leadership requires a clear public statement. That is now overdue.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, this is the 14th debate about Zimbabwe in the past four years. Much of the Prime Minister is statement reporting back from the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in December was taken up with questions on our role in maintaining Zimbabwe's suspension, large parts of Foreign Office questions over a long period have been taken up with Zimbabwe, and there have been innumerable speeches about that country in foreign affairs debates on the Floor of the House.
If debates on the Floor of the House were the answer to Zimbabwe's problems, they would have been solved long ago. I can offer hon. Member is a little piece of good news, for which I hope they will be duly grateful, although I am prepared for the possibility that they might not. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to a debate on the subject in the main Chamber. and we will arrange a mutually convenient time for all the main parties through the business managers.
Although one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise when one attends these debates, there is no serious difference between the main parties on the issue of Zimbabwe. The Government's objective for Zimbabwe, like that of the principal Opposition parties, is for the restoration of a democratically accountable Government who respect human rights and the rule of law, and who adopt sound economic policies aimed at alleviating the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.
I acknowledge the measured and responsible contributions from most hon. Gentlemen, especially the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake) and for West Suffolk (Mr Spring).
However, I thought that the tone of much of what the hon. Member for East Devon said went a little over the top, to no particular purpose. If he wishes to be taken seriously, he should not try to pretend that what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe is mostly the fault of the British Government, or that there is a long list of things that they could have done years ago that would have made everything different. Most sensible people will acknowledge that it is a complex problem to which there is no perfect solution.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about Kosovo, which he raised last time he participated in one of these debates, unless he is proposing military action, which he told us last time he was not. All sensible 400WH people would acknowledge that there is no basis for any kind of outside military intervention, not least because none of the surrounding countries would tolerate it.
I will not attempt to outdo the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, but I shall try to respond to some of his points. Much of his speech was directed against South Africa, and he made points regarding the role of the South African Government. I am sure the South Africans will have heard what hon. Members had to say.
One hon. Member said that the South African Government had been inactive, which I dispute. Whether or not one accepts his tactics, President Mbeki has been extremely active on the issue. He regularly meets representatives of the ruling party and of the Opposition—
§ Tom BrakeCan the Minister tell us whether Mr. Mbeki will be active on the subject of the UN human rights commissioner, and does he have any information about whether South Africa will again call for no action on that?
§ Mr. MullinI think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the UN human rights commission. The UN may consider the issue again later this month. I do not know what South Africa's position is likely to be, but we will, of course, talk to its representatives about that.
I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Devon say—he will forgive me if I am wrong—that our only response to millions starving is rhetoric. That is absolute and obvious nonsense. British taxpayers have spent £62 million on food aid over the past five years to help to feed the hungry, and £26.5 million to help to deal with the huge problem of HIV/AIDS.
We worked hard at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. Indeed, we took the lead to ensure the continued suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, and we worked hard with our European partners in extending the roll-over of EU sanctions. I will say more about sanctions in a moment. Scarcely a day passes without the subject of Zimbabwe crossing my desk, so the Government are perfectly aware of the importance that hon. Members attach to the issue, and of its general importance to Africa and the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain actively engaged.
Several hon. Members asked whether we had talked to the Libyans about Zimbabwe. given the relationship between the Libyans and Mr. Mugabe. The answer is that we have done so on several occasions and will continue to do so.
On US sanctions and the seven companies to which several hon. Members referred, I should make it clear that all the people who run those companies are among the 95 on the EU sanctions list. Although we may approach the matter from a slightly different angle from that of the Americans, there is quite a large overlap. Hon. Members should be aware of that. We are willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, extending the sanctions to the companies themselves or to the people connected with those companies, but, as I said, there is already a considerable overlap between ourselves and the Americans. There are more people on the EU list than on the Americans' list.
§ Tom BrakeI thank the Minister for clarifying the position and the overlap between what has been done by 401WH the UK and the US. On the specific point about M&S Syndicate, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond now or in writing. Admittedly, the information dates back to January 2001 and therefore may no longer be relevant, but will he confirm whether there is a link between M&S Syndicate and Unicorn Import-Export and, if so, what action, if any, the Government will take?
§ Mr. MullinI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As he anticipates, I cannot reply off the top of my head, but I will write to him and ensure that he receives the letter.
Several hon. Members referred to "Playing with Fire", the report published today by a South African non-governmental organisation, a copy of which was given to me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this morning by Professor Ncube. I commend it to the House. It documents the horrendous experience that Opposition politicians—Members of Parliament and candidates—and their agents have suffered in trying to mount a democratic opposition to the tyranny in Zimbabwe. It deserves wide circulation.
§ Sir Nicholas WintertonI raised the position of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and the whole world is watching his trial. I hope the Government will leave the Administration of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF in no doubt that we expect the trial to be transparently fair. The whole world, including all African countries. would take a very dim view if it were a charade, and Morgan Tsvangirai, who is perhaps the country's only chance for pluralistic democracy and freedom, were sentenced on a trumped-up charge.
§ Mr. MullinEvery one of us would endorse those sentiments. There are still heart-warming signs that some members of the Zimbabwean judiciary remain committed to administering the rule of law despite the enormous pressure on them. Even recently, there have been cases in which the state's evidence has been dismissed in the most disparaging terms when it has attempted to fit up its political opponents. I therefore retain some faith in Zimbabwe's judicial system, but we shall be watching the outcome of Mr. Tsvangirai's trial very closely.
As hon. Members said, the political, economic and humanitarian crisis remains as acute as ever. We and our partners in the wider international community are doing what we can to increase pressure on the ZANU-PF regime to commence negotiations with the Opposition. We regard that as a prerequisite to finding a solution to the crisis.
On 19 February, the EU agreed to continue its targeted measures against the country's leadership for another year. I am pleased to say that, with our strong support, the list of those targeted by the travel ban and the assets freeze has been extended from 79 to 95 people. Those who have been added to the list include several individuals who bear particular responsibility for the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. They include the head of the Media and Information Commission, who was closely associated with the closure of The Daily News and the hounding of other independent media; the 402WH head of the electoral commission and registrar general, who was closely associated with the fraudulent elections that have become the rule in Zimbabwe; the leader of the so-called war veterans, who is closely associated with the most violent takeovers of commercial farms; all the provincial governors appointed by Mugabe, whose job it is to enforce his writ at local level; and the new set of Ministers whom Mugabe appointed in his last reshuffle on 9 February.
On 23 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. It issued a strong statement, deploring the Zimbabwe Government's failure to address EU concerns about the deteriorating situation in the country. It made it clear that there would he no normalisation of the EU's relationship with Zimbabwe until those concerns were addressed. It also underlined the EU's intention to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe on the basis of need alone.
The UK Government have been a consistent advocate of a robust EU approach to Zimbabwe, so we welcome last month's decision. It sends a clear message that the EU wants Zimbabwe to end repression and economic catastrophe and to return to democratic governance and the rule of law. I hope that that message will be heard not only by Mugabe and his regime, but by the people of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's Opposition, the MDC, certainly welcome the EU measures, which they described as
a clear indication that the international community will not fold its arms while the regime in Zimbabwe continues to trample upon people's basic needs".
§ Mr. SpringThe Minister's first point, about the commitment to dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, was interesting. We have made it clear for some time that, unless a formal structure was put in place, dialogue would not work, and it has not worked. Indeed, Mr. Mugabe recently denounced the MDC as agents of the west. It is all very well making statements about dialogue, but South Africa has not properly brokered discussions. Everything is informal, and no one knows exactly what is going on. I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, but I ask him to move away from rhetoric and propose a specific structure for holding a dialogue.
§ Mr. MullinTo give President Mbeki his due, he has worked quite hard to establish a dialogue between the two main parties, as has President Obasanjo of Nigeria, but without success. It takes two to tango, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I agree that there is no sign of any formal talks between the two sides, and no talks are likely until sufficient pressure is put on the Mugabe regime. Much of the pressure will come from inside the country, given the ruinous state to which it has reduced the economy.
Mr. MulllinThe hon. Member for East Devon shakes his head, but he does not appear to have a better idea, which is what depresses me about his contributions to these discussions. Members of the Government regularly talk to the MDC, and are open to any reasonable suggestions from anyone who has the best interests of the people of Zimbabwe at heart.
403WH Hon. Members referred to youth training camps. Many of us saw the recent "Panorama" documentary, which drew attention to one of the main pillars of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe— the so-called youth training scheme. The fact that a retired brigadier has been placed in charge of those training camps indicates the type of training that takes place. The United Kingdom and its EU partners have made it clear that the closure of the camps is a prerequisite of any normalisation of relations between the EU and Zimbabwe, and I am pleased to say that past and present Ministers in charge of the training scheme are on the EU's list of banned individuals.
On the subject of humanitarian assistance, I stress, as I have in the past, that the EU measures are targeted, and as such are not intended to harm Zimbabwe's civilian population. The impact that switching off the electricity would have on ordinary people must be carefully calculated. I would not like to make that judgment. It is not unreasonable for the South Africans to expect Zimbabwe to pay for the large amounts of electricity that it receives but, in the end, it will be for South Africa to make that judgment. It should not be made lightly.
The EU remains committed to the Zimbabwean people, and has donated humanitarian assistance worth £184 million in the past year or so. The UK is the EU's largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe, and the largest donor overall after the United States.
§ Mr. SpringThe Minister is generous in giving way. I fear that he is not going to address the central point about the role of South Africa in all this. He will know as a Foreign Office Minister that the reason why North Korea was persuaded to come to the table to negotiate 404WH was that the Chinese threatened to switch off its energy supplies. That got North Korea thinking and acting. I ask the Minister to address the central point about applying pressure to South Africa and inviting the South Africans to take concerted action to move the process on.
§ Mr. MullinI do not rule out increasing the pressure on the Mugabe Government. I agree that the South African Government are better placed than most to do so, but I am not willing to engage in a public slanging match with the South Africans in Westminster Hall, in the Chamber, or anywhere else, nor am I willing to advise them over the airwaves on what they should do. They are in the front line. They have 2 million refugees from Zimbabwe, so they know exactly the scale of the problem. We remain in close dialogue with them, and have had several robust conversations. I shall not, however, address them through a megaphone.
In conclusion, as hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe's economy continues to spiral downwards. Inflation is now running at almost 700 per cent., and unemployment is running at more than 70 per cent. As hon. Members said, as many as 7 million people will need international help with food this winter. We recognise the need to keep up the pressure, but the greatest pressure of all will come from the sheer scale of the catastrophe that Mr. Mugabe and his Government have unleashed on their own people. In the meantime, I hope that African Governments, including South Africa, will speak out as clearly as Governments in Europe do—
§ Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair)Order. We now come to the debate on clean water access in developing countries.