House of Lords Hansard for 20 Jun 2005 (pt 16)
The following is UK House of Lords Hansard text by Baroness Park of Monmouth, asking the UK Government what their response is to the report by the Africa Commission.
Although lengthy, we have quoted the full text here. It is also available on Hansard here.
The blue text is our emphasis, the hyperlinks included are our references added.
UK Parliament
House of Lords
Monday 20th June 2005
Africa Commission
Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report by the Africa Commission.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the many and distinguished noble Lords who are speaking in this debate.
The Commission for Africa report, all 461 pages, deals exhaustively with every aspect of Africa's future and sets out a vast range of new bodies—expert panels, peer reviews, social co-ordination committees, enterprise challenge commissions, presidential initiatives, a peace-building support office, a panel of the wise in the AU Peace and Security Council, an inter-government authority for development, a Social Affairs Commission and very many more, all of which need funding for their secretariats and administrative and operational costs. If all these organisations are created and funded, the AU will very soon become another UN or EU—bureaucratic, out of touch with ordinary people, duplicating much UN effort and likely to absorb much of the money and the skilled people needed for work at the grass roots, work to enable ordinary people to own their own lives and build the economy from below.
I believe that this ambitious plan cannot be implemented by aid workers on the ground alone. We shall need our embassies to work closely with African governments. I was struck, incidentally, by the inclusion of the Chinese in the commission. Was that an African initiative recognising China's increasing presence and influence in Africa, notably in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe?
The G8 meeting is due in July. This month, as we know almost exclusively by the brave act of Kate Hoey MP and her visit to what has become an Iron Curtain country, Zimbabwe, hundreds of thousands of black citizens have had their homes razed to the ground by the police—the forces of law and order who were told to shoot to kill if they encountered resistance. Clinics, hospitals and schools which served them were destroyed and the people, including young children, AIDS sufferers and other sick people, have been brutally driven either into concentration camp areas with no water and no lavatories or to the starving countryside—and this in the depth of winter.
Small free-traders have had their goods confiscated or destroyed. Compassionate men and women and religious orders who have tried to take blankets and food to the people have had them confiscated and have themselves been brutally treated. The Catholic Church has been forbidden by Mugabe to give succour to these people. There is no petrol. No doubt it is fuelling Mugabe's four Chinese jet fighters or his own travel abroad—to the G77, for example.
Why is this relevant to a discussion of the commission's remit? There are two reasons. The first is that the report, although it never once speaks of the treatment of the population of Zimbabwe by its own Government over some four years, has much to say about the nature of good governance, acknowledges that it is a prerequisite of economic and social success for African countries, and recognises:
Why cannot these clear sighted and honest assessments in the commission lead to immediate action by the AU to save the suffering people of Zimbabwe? Why cannot the UN act, as it has with the AU in the Sudan? What is the point of the multifarious organs being set up by NePAD and SADC and such organs as the emergency preparedness of contingency planning groups under SADC? What action is being taken on the AU's own African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights report—first produced in 2002, stalled for three years by the Zimbabwe Government, and now at last released? It requires Zimbabwe to restore an impartial judiciary and security forces, to cease arbitrary arrests of political opponents—every one of the MDC MPs has suffered brutal beatings or attacks on their families—and to revise restrictive media and security legislation. That is what the AU report says.
Under the present law, no charity is allowed to send money into Zimbabwe. They, like DfID, have to work through the UN which, with the honourable exception of Unicef, has until recently not been notable for telling the outside world what is happening. The UNDP has actually been working with the Mugabe government on a scheme to interview 30,000 householders to identify the causes of poverty and another for the ministries to ask local people what their plans are for disaster management. What a bitter joke!
The commission has made many constructive proposals, but unless and until the chief architect of NePAD and the AU, South Africa—which dominates the SADC countries, which are virtually its satellites—abandons the discredited quiet diplomacy which works only in Mugabe's favour and does nothing for the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the G8 meeting on Africa will be a cynical and disgraceful exercise. It is not reassuring that Mr Mbeki continues to refuse to see anything wrong in Mugabe's wicked behaviour—something that he may come to rue if Zimbabwe collapses and implodes. That can only be bad for all the surrounding countries.
I hope also that as a member of the commission, President Mkapa of Tanzania will be called to account for his statements made at the African economic summit in South Africa when the news began to emerge of the terrible events named "Operation Clean Up Filth". He said that this was no more than an,
I believe that the opposite is true. Clearly the commission has accepted the omission from the report of any reference to Zimbabwe, no doubt reassuring itself that it is enough to make many acknowledgements of weak governance in general and to say that,
However, in the face of the total inaction of President Mbeki, who has the power but not the will to make Mugabe let in the world press and the trade unions, and given the active support for Mugabe of President Mkapa, nothing will be done unless the G8 makes it absolutely clear at the outset that there will be no talks on aid until the AU, and in particular South Africa, acts to end the awful tragedy now going on in Zimbabwe. It could begin by, first, requiring free access by the world press and observers; and secondly, ceasing to block all discussion of Zimbabwe in the UN, and joining us in requiring full reports from all the UN bodies present in Zimbabwe, particularly on the issue of human rights, and immediate action to distribute food and medicine, but not through the government. A child is dying every 15 minutes in Zimbabwe, and AIDS is destroying the population. Thirdly, it might send in an AU/UN mission to review the conduct of the police and the state of justice; and fourthly, revoke the legislation which prevents NGOs from receiving money from outside. Without that, the present emergency would rank with the tsunami for urgent need and would attract instant donor support—but no one is going to give to enrich Mugabe.
Somehow, the G8 meeting and the commission's report must be used to test the good faith of the African countries. At the least, the wall that they have built must come down and aid must flow in freely to those who need it. We are witnessing the death of a people. The G8 meeting must be used to save them, and no empty declarations must be made. The report says that it has tried to be blisteringly honest and face up to unpalatable truths. We are told that the right to life and security is the most basic of human rights—in the context of the Sudan, Somalia and the DRC—and not least that the AU has moved towards putting forward the concept of non-indifference to replace the OAU policy of non-interference. According to the report, that new policy recognises the responsibility of member states to promote human security into practice. It must not forget that it has called its report Our Common Interest.
I have one further proposal for immediate action—that the Prime Minister should ask President Mbeki to arrange for an educational visit to Zimbabwe by Mr Bob Geldof on behalf of the commission. I know that Africans—and I have known many in my long life—are proud people. I cannot believe that they will shame their countries by continuing to pass by on the other side, and pretend that Mugabe is not wilfully destroying his people. They must stop him, and at once—and that can only be one of the good arguments for the commission and the G8.
.......
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on securing yet another important debate. Like her, I want to talk about the problem of Zimbabwe. In 2001, the Prime Minister made remarks about the prospective partnership between the developed and the underdeveloped world. He said that, as part of the bargain between the two sides, there would be no tolerance of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe. Things have not turned out quite like that. The Government and the European Union have imposed some sanctions, but they have no sign of having any effect.
The Government have clearly been deterred from being more positive in their actions by the fear of being accused of neo-colonialism. They have done nothing to deserve that charge; nevertheless, it continues to be made by Mr Mugabe. I am a bit doubtful about how many leaders in Africa actually believe the charge.
All noble Lords are familiar with the horrors of the Mugabe regime. This month, they have got even worse; one believed that they could not get worse, but they can. The so-called Operation Clean Up Filth involves the demolition of many houses and businesses. It has created hundreds of thousands of homeless people. The churches have been instructed not to accept the homeless for shelter. More than 300,000 schoolchildren have dropped out of school because their homes have been destroyed. The police are delivering bills for electricity, water and sewage to the homeless that, of course, they do not deserve to receive.
That policy of new destruction—it is right to call it genocidal—clears out of the townships the people who live there, who tend to support the opposition. It puts them in the countryside, where they are dispersed and disorganised and fall under the control of local chiefs, who are politically appointed. That is what has happened recently to those who support the opposition in the townships. The only valid comparison in the world for that action is Pol Pot. The action makes a solution even more urgent than it has been.
What is to be done? I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, with us today. He said last week that quiet diplomacy had failed, as has megaphone diplomacy; we all have to agree. The world is at a loss, but there is an exception to that in the form of my noble friend Lady Park, who had some interesting ideas. The key lies with the African leaders. They have failed in connection with Zimbabwe to live up to their undertakings to promote human rights, good governance and the rule of law—and to exercise peer pressure to obtain those results.
At present, Her Majesty's Government have an unparalleled opportunity to do something useful. The Prime Minister has the presidency of the G8, the most influential group of countries in the world, which has great powers of persuasion. Most of the G8 is committed to relief for Africa and the forgiving of debt. My suggestion is that the Prime Minister should use his position to persuade his colleagues in the G8, or some of them at least, to persuade the African leaders to live up to their undertakings. President Mbeki will be in Gleneagles, for example.
I want to emphasise that proposal, as it is worth serious consideration. It involves no need for military force. It does not necessarily involve every G8 country; you could have a few taking part. There is no need for much publicity about the proposal. If several G8 countries took part, it would help to counter the allegations of Mr Mugabe about neo-colonialism by the United Kingdom. Not many political leaders have had such an opportunity as now lies with the Prime Minister, and I hope that he will seize it.
.........................
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth for seizing the opportunity for a debate on the Commission for Africa. It was not my intention to speak about Zimbabwe tonight, but no one could fail to heed the words of my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lady Park, and one hopes that quiet diplomacy will be better utilised in the months ahead. I shall return to that.
.....
Although lengthy, we have quoted the full text here. It is also available on Hansard here.
The blue text is our emphasis, the hyperlinks included are our references added.
UK Parliament
House of Lords
Monday 20th June 2005
Africa Commission
Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report by the Africa Commission.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the many and distinguished noble Lords who are speaking in this debate.
The Commission for Africa report, all 461 pages, deals exhaustively with every aspect of Africa's future and sets out a vast range of new bodies—expert panels, peer reviews, social co-ordination committees, enterprise challenge commissions, presidential initiatives, a peace-building support office, a panel of the wise in the AU Peace and Security Council, an inter-government authority for development, a Social Affairs Commission and very many more, all of which need funding for their secretariats and administrative and operational costs. If all these organisations are created and funded, the AU will very soon become another UN or EU—bureaucratic, out of touch with ordinary people, duplicating much UN effort and likely to absorb much of the money and the skilled people needed for work at the grass roots, work to enable ordinary people to own their own lives and build the economy from below.
I believe that this ambitious plan cannot be implemented by aid workers on the ground alone. We shall need our embassies to work closely with African governments. I was struck, incidentally, by the inclusion of the Chinese in the commission. Was that an African initiative recognising China's increasing presence and influence in Africa, notably in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe?
The G8 meeting is due in July. This month, as we know almost exclusively by the brave act of Kate Hoey MP and her visit to what has become an Iron Curtain country, Zimbabwe, hundreds of thousands of black citizens have had their homes razed to the ground by the police—the forces of law and order who were told to shoot to kill if they encountered resistance. Clinics, hospitals and schools which served them were destroyed and the people, including young children, AIDS sufferers and other sick people, have been brutally driven either into concentration camp areas with no water and no lavatories or to the starving countryside—and this in the depth of winter.
Small free-traders have had their goods confiscated or destroyed. Compassionate men and women and religious orders who have tried to take blankets and food to the people have had them confiscated and have themselves been brutally treated. The Catholic Church has been forbidden by Mugabe to give succour to these people. There is no petrol. No doubt it is fuelling Mugabe's four Chinese jet fighters or his own travel abroad—to the G77, for example.
Why is this relevant to a discussion of the commission's remit? There are two reasons. The first is that the report, although it never once speaks of the treatment of the population of Zimbabwe by its own Government over some four years, has much to say about the nature of good governance, acknowledges that it is a prerequisite of economic and social success for African countries, and recognises:
"If African countries fail in their efforts to overcome weak governance, corruption and conflict, the case for outside support in terms of strong increases in aid is fundamentally undermined".The report adds that AU/NePAD should eliminate any current restrictions on the mass media, should listen to the trade unions and should provide an impartial justice system. Without effective policing, it says, ordinary people suffer violence, crime and insecurity. Justice needs to be impartial, judicial oversight should be strong, and,
"not least, African journalists have a crucial role in holding the Government to account and exposing corruption and inefficiency".The African countries well know that that cannot happen in Zimbabwe.
Why cannot these clear sighted and honest assessments in the commission lead to immediate action by the AU to save the suffering people of Zimbabwe? Why cannot the UN act, as it has with the AU in the Sudan? What is the point of the multifarious organs being set up by NePAD and SADC and such organs as the emergency preparedness of contingency planning groups under SADC? What action is being taken on the AU's own African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights report—first produced in 2002, stalled for three years by the Zimbabwe Government, and now at last released? It requires Zimbabwe to restore an impartial judiciary and security forces, to cease arbitrary arrests of political opponents—every one of the MDC MPs has suffered brutal beatings or attacks on their families—and to revise restrictive media and security legislation. That is what the AU report says.
Under the present law, no charity is allowed to send money into Zimbabwe. They, like DfID, have to work through the UN which, with the honourable exception of Unicef, has until recently not been notable for telling the outside world what is happening. The UNDP has actually been working with the Mugabe government on a scheme to interview 30,000 householders to identify the causes of poverty and another for the ministries to ask local people what their plans are for disaster management. What a bitter joke!
The commission has made many constructive proposals, but unless and until the chief architect of NePAD and the AU, South Africa—which dominates the SADC countries, which are virtually its satellites—abandons the discredited quiet diplomacy which works only in Mugabe's favour and does nothing for the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the G8 meeting on Africa will be a cynical and disgraceful exercise. It is not reassuring that Mr Mbeki continues to refuse to see anything wrong in Mugabe's wicked behaviour—something that he may come to rue if Zimbabwe collapses and implodes. That can only be bad for all the surrounding countries.
I hope also that as a member of the commission, President Mkapa of Tanzania will be called to account for his statements made at the African economic summit in South Africa when the news began to emerge of the terrible events named "Operation Clean Up Filth". He said that this was no more than an,
"ongoing clear-up operation, necessary to deal with some of the activities compounding economic difficulties facing the country, and to wipe out a secondary economy that was becoming increasingly active and exacerbating the challenges the country was already contending with".The Government of Zimbabwe were just trying to formalise the economy. He added that the stance of the West would not be tolerated, especially in the context of the G8.
I believe that the opposite is true. Clearly the commission has accepted the omission from the report of any reference to Zimbabwe, no doubt reassuring itself that it is enough to make many acknowledgements of weak governance in general and to say that,
"the right to life and security is the most basic of human rights".It acknowledges the existence, without naming them, of fragile states.
However, in the face of the total inaction of President Mbeki, who has the power but not the will to make Mugabe let in the world press and the trade unions, and given the active support for Mugabe of President Mkapa, nothing will be done unless the G8 makes it absolutely clear at the outset that there will be no talks on aid until the AU, and in particular South Africa, acts to end the awful tragedy now going on in Zimbabwe. It could begin by, first, requiring free access by the world press and observers; and secondly, ceasing to block all discussion of Zimbabwe in the UN, and joining us in requiring full reports from all the UN bodies present in Zimbabwe, particularly on the issue of human rights, and immediate action to distribute food and medicine, but not through the government. A child is dying every 15 minutes in Zimbabwe, and AIDS is destroying the population. Thirdly, it might send in an AU/UN mission to review the conduct of the police and the state of justice; and fourthly, revoke the legislation which prevents NGOs from receiving money from outside. Without that, the present emergency would rank with the tsunami for urgent need and would attract instant donor support—but no one is going to give to enrich Mugabe.
Somehow, the G8 meeting and the commission's report must be used to test the good faith of the African countries. At the least, the wall that they have built must come down and aid must flow in freely to those who need it. We are witnessing the death of a people. The G8 meeting must be used to save them, and no empty declarations must be made. The report says that it has tried to be blisteringly honest and face up to unpalatable truths. We are told that the right to life and security is the most basic of human rights—in the context of the Sudan, Somalia and the DRC—and not least that the AU has moved towards putting forward the concept of non-indifference to replace the OAU policy of non-interference. According to the report, that new policy recognises the responsibility of member states to promote human security into practice. It must not forget that it has called its report Our Common Interest.
I have one further proposal for immediate action—that the Prime Minister should ask President Mbeki to arrange for an educational visit to Zimbabwe by Mr Bob Geldof on behalf of the commission. I know that Africans—and I have known many in my long life—are proud people. I cannot believe that they will shame their countries by continuing to pass by on the other side, and pretend that Mugabe is not wilfully destroying his people. They must stop him, and at once—and that can only be one of the good arguments for the commission and the G8.
.......
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on securing yet another important debate. Like her, I want to talk about the problem of Zimbabwe. In 2001, the Prime Minister made remarks about the prospective partnership between the developed and the underdeveloped world. He said that, as part of the bargain between the two sides, there would be no tolerance of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe. Things have not turned out quite like that. The Government and the European Union have imposed some sanctions, but they have no sign of having any effect.
The Government have clearly been deterred from being more positive in their actions by the fear of being accused of neo-colonialism. They have done nothing to deserve that charge; nevertheless, it continues to be made by Mr Mugabe. I am a bit doubtful about how many leaders in Africa actually believe the charge.
All noble Lords are familiar with the horrors of the Mugabe regime. This month, they have got even worse; one believed that they could not get worse, but they can. The so-called Operation Clean Up Filth involves the demolition of many houses and businesses. It has created hundreds of thousands of homeless people. The churches have been instructed not to accept the homeless for shelter. More than 300,000 schoolchildren have dropped out of school because their homes have been destroyed. The police are delivering bills for electricity, water and sewage to the homeless that, of course, they do not deserve to receive.
That policy of new destruction—it is right to call it genocidal—clears out of the townships the people who live there, who tend to support the opposition. It puts them in the countryside, where they are dispersed and disorganised and fall under the control of local chiefs, who are politically appointed. That is what has happened recently to those who support the opposition in the townships. The only valid comparison in the world for that action is Pol Pot. The action makes a solution even more urgent than it has been.
What is to be done? I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, with us today. He said last week that quiet diplomacy had failed, as has megaphone diplomacy; we all have to agree. The world is at a loss, but there is an exception to that in the form of my noble friend Lady Park, who had some interesting ideas. The key lies with the African leaders. They have failed in connection with Zimbabwe to live up to their undertakings to promote human rights, good governance and the rule of law—and to exercise peer pressure to obtain those results.
At present, Her Majesty's Government have an unparalleled opportunity to do something useful. The Prime Minister has the presidency of the G8, the most influential group of countries in the world, which has great powers of persuasion. Most of the G8 is committed to relief for Africa and the forgiving of debt. My suggestion is that the Prime Minister should use his position to persuade his colleagues in the G8, or some of them at least, to persuade the African leaders to live up to their undertakings. President Mbeki will be in Gleneagles, for example.
I want to emphasise that proposal, as it is worth serious consideration. It involves no need for military force. It does not necessarily involve every G8 country; you could have a few taking part. There is no need for much publicity about the proposal. If several G8 countries took part, it would help to counter the allegations of Mr Mugabe about neo-colonialism by the United Kingdom. Not many political leaders have had such an opportunity as now lies with the Prime Minister, and I hope that he will seize it.
.........................
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth for seizing the opportunity for a debate on the Commission for Africa. It was not my intention to speak about Zimbabwe tonight, but no one could fail to heed the words of my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lady Park, and one hopes that quiet diplomacy will be better utilised in the months ahead. I shall return to that.
.....
