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.
.....
