The Zimbabwe Situation

Zimbabwe's main labor union has called for a two-day nationwide strike
beginning Thursday to protest the arrest of dozens of its members during
anti-government demonstrations.
Spokesman for the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, Mlanleli Sibanda, says
workers will also strike to urge the government to reduce taxes and stop
what it calls violations of civil and trade union rights.

Tuesday, heavily armed riot police cracked down on anti-government
demonstrations in cities across the nation.

At least 300 people were arrested in the capital, Harare, and two other
cities - Bulawayo and Mutare.

All but 65 of them have been released on bail - or were freed after paying
fines. But the union leaders remain in custody - among them: union president
Lovemore Matombo and secretary-general Wellington Chibebe.

The Congress of Trade Unions says several people were beaten by police and
that at least three people were seriously injured.

Police have not responded to the allegations.

The government had warned against the demonstrations. It is against the law
in Zimbabwe to hold a protest without government permission.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change has condemned the use of what
it called brutal force against innocent civilians.

Zimbabwe is experiencing a severe economic crisis - with an annual inflation
rate of around 526 percent, chronic unemployment and shortages of cash, fuel
and food.

      SENIOR ruling ZANU PF officials in Rusape have allegedly foiled plans
to open the Manicaland province town's first internet cafe, accusing its
owners of being linked to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, it
was learnt this week.

      Sources close to the matter said senior officials last Friday ordered
ZANU PF youths to beat up Rusape town engineer Gift Chibongore for allegedly
approving plans for the internet cafe.

      According to witnesses and informed sources, the officials accused
Chibongore of inviting a Mutare businessman to set up the internet cafe.

      Witnesses said the ruling party officials first sent about five ZANU
PF youths to forcibly march Chibongore to the town's ZANU PF offices to
respond to the allegations.

      "Chibongore refused to accompany the youths to their office," one
source said.

      But the sources said the ZANU PF gang went into Chibongore’s office,
dragged him out and took him to the ruling party’s offices for
"questioning".

      Under questioning, he told the ruling party officials that there was a
city council resolution sanctioning the opening of the internet cafe.

      Town secretary Obert Muzawazi would neither confirm nor deny the
reports.

      He would only say: "I was not there. You can speak to Chibongore and
get the details."

      But Chibongore refused to comment, saying "everything has been
resolved".

      An official with internet cafe firm One Up said the company had taken
the matter up with the provincial administrator’s office.

      "We have nearly 15 computers which have to be set up in Rusape, but
politicians are currently causing some problems," the official said.

      "We hope it will be resolved amicably. Any further delays would
deprive Rusape residents of employment opportunities and internet
facilities."

      A spokesman for Australian Prime Minister John Howard reiterated
Australia's strong opposition to inviting Mugabe, but would not say whether
Howard would still attend if Nigeria invited the Zimbabwe leader.

      "The prime minister continued to operate on previous assurances
delivered through the Commonwealth secretary general that as Zimbabwe
remains suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth it would not be
appropriate for Mugabe to attend," the spokesman said.

      Asked whether Howard might boycott the meeting if Mugabe attended, the
spokesman declined to comment, calling the scenario "hypothetical".

      Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002 following
presidential elections won by Mugabe but widely viewed as fraudulent. The
ban was extended in March but is due to run out in December.

      Howard chairs a troika of Commonwealth states including South Africa
and Nigeria that is tasked with monitoring the Zimbabwe issue. But South
Africa, Zimbabwe's neighbour, has taken Mugabe's side and pushed for an
invitation.

      Nigeria as host actually issues the invitations. When Obasanjo visited
Harare earlier this week Mugabe said he looked forward to attending the
meeting.

      Obasanjo said he was "consulting" on whether Zimbabwe would attend.

      The meeting is scheduled to take place in the Nigerian capital Abuja
from December 5 to 8.

      - AFP

Remember that you must be connected to the internet to view the pictures in this newsletter.

As you are aware that ZCTU leaders and other civic society leaders were arrested for protesting on 18 November 2003, we are therefore calling for a stayaway to be held tomorrow, Thursday 20 November and Friday 21 2003.

ø the reduction of tax
ø managed prices of basic commodities including transport
ø respect for human and trade union rights

Part of the ZCTU petition that was to have been handed over to the Minister of Finance read:
"Almost every worker is taxed up to 45 percent of his or her wages and benefits, yet there is nothing to show for it. Our health delivery system, transport, educational system and all services have collapsed. In the context of the deepening crisis, workers and Zimbabweans in general can no longer enjoy basic economic rights such as the right to food, health, education, shelter, affordable accommodation, employment and security, among others."

Overheard on the day
"What we are seeing is the reaction of a desperate regime, which is prepared to use heavy-handed tactics to deny Zimbabwean citizens basic rights and freedoms of association and expression."
~ Madhuku, NCA Chairman

"No amount of force or intimidation will stop a revolution whose time has come."
~ Paul Themba Nyathi, MDC

"It was only some policemen with heavy hands. One was even whispering in my ear that the police are moving to the side of the people. That the dictator is finished."
~ Nhari, Secretary Youth Forum Harare

From Sokwanele - fighting non-violently in Bulawayo
"Police started beating people randomly, many were not even aware of the meeting called by the ZCTU. I ran towards Renkini bus terminus to seek refuge," Ncube explained. "The meeting began with slogans from ZCTU and suddenly tear gas cannisters were fired sending us in all directions." Ncube (24) has a one year old daughter and laments the high cost of living. From his fast diminishing monthly salary he can barely pay for transport, if available, food, clinic bills and rent. He long ago stopped thinking about new clothes or other past luxuries. The basic needs for an average family comes to Z$106 000, not including school fees or any extras, Ncube, an average worker, nets an income of $Z80 000. "It is time that workers strengthened the cause of the ZCTU by participating in its protests," Ncube believes. "The issue of high taxes is an issue of great concern to me and my fellow workers. I believe success will come if we are all united under the ZCTU and have one purpose," said Ncube.

Thousands of Zimbabwean workers responded to the ZCTU call. Many were seen walking down the main industrial artery road in small groups prior to the meeting. Even then, the riot police were hot on their tails. Troop carriers holding groups of riot police were seen in pursuit of any action deemed to be anti-state. In two separate incidents trained dogs were set upon the potential protestors, leaving the victims savaged. Several areas in the city were blanketed by tear gas, with at least five separate explosions from canisters being heard. Pumas carrying AK-toting police dispersed the thousands of people converging on the site of the meeting to be held outside a prominent government building. No less than three eye witness accounts have come in of people beaten whilst fleeing the riot police batons. The "Women of Zimbabwe Arise" (WOZA) group joined their colleagues and now five have been taken to clinics for treatment following severe beatings by the riot police. A woman handing out sweets outside a popular supermarket, was manhandled and arrested by three riot policemen.

Today, crowds of potential protestors stood up to their attackers using their voices, not fists. Only one incident of revenge has been reported with a police land rover surrounded in the city center and its windscreen smashed. No injuries occurred. The brutal mugabe regime time and again uses force to crush any expression of freedom, yet the people go on. Zimbabweans, especially its mothers, will not be defeated.

Regional support for the ZCTU
COSATU has declared its full support for the ZCTU's legitimate protest action to pressure government to reduce taxation ahead of the announcement of the national budget on Thursday. The protest was also against the government's abuse of human and trade union rights, which has been entirely vindicated by today's police action, which illustrates the government's complete lack of any respect for the right to free speech and assembly.

Watch out for Zvakwana weekend papers hitting the streets!

Please help us to grow this mailing list by recommending it to your friends and colleagues.

Join our mailing list, Visit the website at www.zvakwana.org

UN Integrated Regional Information Networks

November 19, 2003
Posted to the web November 19, 2003

Johannesburg

Zimbabweans continue to face a particularly severe humanitarian crisis, with
nearly half the population having had their livelihoods eroded by severe
macroeconomic decline and precarious food security, said the UN Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

"What began as a food crisis in Zimbabwe in 2002 has grown into a major
humanitarian emergency, with people suffering the effects of a deteriorating
economy, HIV/AIDS, depleted social services and policy constraints," OCHA
said in an appeal to donors.

The organisation noted that "as the country enters its fifth successive year
of economic decline, Zimbabwe faces critical shortages of foreign exchange
to maintain essential infrastructure, and inflation has soared".

Inflation reached 526 percent in October, according to figures issued on
Tuesday by the state's Central Statistical Office (CSO). Compared with
prices in October a year ago, the cost of living went up 525.8 percent,
against September's annual rate of 456 percent, the South African Press
Association reported.

The Humanitarian Appeal 2004 for Zimbabwe is based on plans by UN Agencies
and partner NGOs, to respond to the humanitarian crisis by concentrating on
three main areas: firstly, to prevent loss of life through food, nutrition,
and critical health interventions; and secondly, to mitigate the impact of
the crisis on vulnerable groups by supporting household livelihoods and
basic services, and addressing the impact of HIV/AIDS. The third aim is to
develop a productive dialogue among humanitarian stakeholders to strengthen
co-ordination, in order to protect the most vulnerable.

"The HIV/AIDS pandemic is central to the crisis. Recent estimates indicate
that around 34 per cent of Zimbabwe's 15 to 40 age group is infected, and
more than 2,500 people die every week of AIDS-related causes," OCHA said.

Compounding the crisis is a steady decline in the delivery of health,
education, social and public services due to a lack of finance, and the loss
of human resources to emigration and AIDS.

"One result is that malaria, tuberculosis and cholera cases are on the rise.
Another result is that Zimbabweans face a severe food security crisis in
2003-04. An estimated 5.5 million people will require food aid during the
coming year. The country has enough food to feed its population for just
four to five months," OCHA said.

In the Consolidated Appeal for Zimbabwe, agencies request US $109.4 million
to meet outstanding funding requirements.

The Herald (Harare)

November 19, 2003
Posted to the web November 19, 2003

Harare

GROSS foreign reserves were at levels of around US$85 million by October 10
2003, a figure which represents less than a month's import cover as the
foreign currency market remained tight.

According to a weekly report from a local research company, foreign currency
inflows have remained low due to the poor performance of the country's
exports on international markets as well as the significant reduction in
inflows from international organisations.

The fundamental problem in the foreign currency market is the pronounced
excess of demand over supply of foreign currency that has pushed the foreign
currency prices up on the parallel market as guided by the economics law of
demand and supply.

As long as the shortage continues, the present distortions in the foreign
exchange market will remain.

"If anything, the local unit will actually depreciate even further and in
the short to medium-term, we do not expect the supply of foreign currency
into our economy to improve significantly so as to fuel any appreciation of
the local unit," said the report.

Notwithstanding the foreign currency shortages, the Zimbabwe dollar has
remained unchanged at $824 against the US dollar.

Analysts expect that some package on monetary policy and exchange rate
policy would be announced after the 2004 national budget tomorrow.

The report also showed that the economic global slowdown had a negative
impact on the country's balance of payments performance through reduced
import volumes and depressed commodity prices.

"The lack of essential raw materials as a result of reduced imports and high
inflation levels also led to a decline in exports of around 5,4 percent to
US$1,4 billion.

"There was increased demand for foreign currency to import grain as a result
of the food shortages resulting from the poor agricultural season," added
the report.

This saw the food import bill growing by 428,4 percent to US$359,3 million.

While manufacturers, who import over 50 percent of their input requirements
have been affected by the decline in imports, there has been an increase in
imports of finished goods through the parallel market.

This in turn fuelled inflation as the cost of acquiring foreign currency on
the parallel market for the imports is passed on to consumers.

The structure and level of imports plays a pivotal role in driving the
growth of the economy. This also depends on the performance of exports.

      Tuesday 18 November 2003

      [Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

      Zimbabwe

      9.30 am

      Mr. Deputy Speaker : This is a very topical debate. If Members show
self-discipline, I am sure that everybody who wishes to speak will be able
to do so. It is my intention to call the first wind-up speaker at 10.30 am.

      Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby ): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall show some
self-discipline, although I have much to say. I welcome the opportunity,
especially this week, to debate Zimbabwe, having discussed it in two forums
in the House of Commons last week when we heard from many people, including
representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change and the editor of The
Daily News.

      I particularly welcome the Minister. Although I suspect that he and I
disagree profoundly about a great many issues, I pay tribute to the fact
that he has built a career on the pursuit of justice, and I believe that
this debate is about justice. More than two years ago, the Prime Minister
said in his conference speech that there would be "no tolerance of bad
governance" in Africa, including the activities of "Mr Mugabe's henchmen in
Zimbabwe", yet the situation goes from bad to worse and people in Zimbabwe
are dying of starvation.

      When Mugabe was elected nearly a quarter of a century ago, people were
both surprised and delighted that he did not pursue the Marxism that ZANU PF
had previously espoused. We did not appreciate how fearful Zimbabweans were
of a return to violence, which ZANU PF had threatened if it did not win that
election — perhaps that is why it won. In the early 1980s, we in Europe
heard little of the activities in Matabeleland of the notorious Fifth
Brigade, which emulated the North Koreans who trained it. It is estimated
that about 20 000 Matabele were massacred.

      Instead, in Britain and the west, we were pleased that Zimbabwe
remained a country in which we could do business, where we could go as a
tourist and in which we could hold a Commonwealth conference, as we did in
1991. It was a rich country, exporting food around southern Africa. However,
by 1999 the economy was in crisis, and it was obvious to all that the
Government of Mugabe was acting like a dictatorship: people were being
murdered and farmland was being seized. By 2000, many of us were calling for
an end to all aid to the regime. The Prime Minister's speech that I quoted
was made in 2001, and the Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe after disputed
elections in March 2002.

      Today, Zimbabwe has 70 percent unemployment and 460 percent
inflation — difficult to judge, I would guess — fuel prices have risen
six-fold in a year and the majority of the population depends on food aid.
There have been 267 politically motivated murders reported this year and
nearly 4 000 people reported tortured, but nobody knows the extent of the
repression. Rich and fertile farm land lies idle while the security forces
run amok and the only source of independent news, The Daily News, has been
closed down.

      Mr Peter Pike (Burnley ): When asked about the land that lies sterile
and is not being used, President Mugabe refers to the Lancaster House
agreement, and says that he is not getting the money. Is it not a fact that
the first tranche of land that he took has still not been redistributed,
other than to his cronies, and most of it is not being used at all?

      Mr Robathan : I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed,
Mugabe's cronies sit on their stolen farms and get ever richer while other
people starve. That is partly because the Zimbabwean army is looting
diamonds and other minerals in the Congo. Yesterday, Welshman Ncube, the
secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, spoke of the
militarisation of Zimbabwe. He mentioned particularly the machinery of
repression that controls the country.

      We are told by Africans that the western world and Europe should keep
their noses out of Zimbabwe's affairs. On a recent visit to the House, the
Nigerian high commissioner said that the issue is an African problem that
needs an African solution.

      He said that it is a task for South Africa, Nigeria or the African
Union, and that quiet diplomacy is needed. President Mbeki has said that the
situation needs to be understood in the context of Zimbabwe's hard won
liberation from white minority rule, while South Africa's Foreign Minister,
Dr. Zuma, has said that she will never condemn Zimbabwe. Sadly, the African
National Congress in South Africa believes that it owes ZANU PF support in
exchange for its backing against the apartheid regime.

      The Inter-Parliamentary Union was due to meet in March next year in
Westminster. Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela had been invited, and the Queen
would have opened the session. However, because the Government, to their
credit, would not give some members of the Zimbabwean regime visas to
attend, the assembly has been moved to, I understand, Thailand — perhaps a
more attractive venue in March. The meeting was moved only because African
countries demanded that there be no hindrance to members of the Zimbabwean
regime.

      Indeed, it was only because John Howard of Australia was so forthright
in condemning the Zimbabwean elections last year that the other two members
of the Commonwealth troika, Nigeria and South Africa, were prevailed upon
similarly to condemn the elections. Does anyone really believe that the
African Union, founded by Colonel Gaddafi, is likely to press for the
restoration of the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe?

      The Minister has recently returned from South Africa, and a high level
South African delegation has just been in London. Will he say what results
have been obtained by quiet diplomacy? Will the Minister assure us that the
Government will have no part in any deal struck to allow Mugabe to
perpetuate the repressive ZANU PF regime — for instance by retiring, yet
nominating his successor without free and fair elections?

      How do we see Zimbabwe in Britain? It is not a far away land of which
we know little — we were the colonial government that ceded power to Mugabe
in 1980. There are more than 30 000 Zimbabweans in this country, mostly
black, and there are 23 000 British subjects in Zimbabwe, which is exactly
half the number of a year ago — partial evidence of the increasingly hostile
and deteriorating situation. We have not only an historical but a moral
obligation to the people of Zimbabwe. Innumerable individuals and the
opposition want Britain to stand up for the crushed Zimbabwean people.

      Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West ): I hope that the whole country will
listen to what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he take it from me that
members of the opposition parties in Zimbabwe are not the only ones who want
that?

      Those who 25 years ago were doing much for ZANU PF, and who were still
with it in the first 10 years after full independence, also oppose what is
being done in their name. Those who want to work for the people of Zimbabwe
should understand that they are fighting for the people, rather than against
the regime per se, although that regime must go to allow the people and
parties in Zimbabwe to work.

      Mr Robathan : I agree entirely with my hon. friend. Whatever opinion
we may have taken at the time, many who fought for liberation now feel
betrayed by the activities of ZANU PF.

      Sadly, too many in the west believe Mugabe's rhetoric. Last week at
one of the forums that I mentioned, a representative from a non-governmental
organisation talked about the need to dismantle the infrastructure of
colonialism. Similarly, the Government seem to fear the accusation that they
are acting in a neo-colonialist manner or as an imperialist power.

      I urge the Government to listen to the people of Zimbabwe, who want
Britain and the west to speak up for them. Over the past week I have heard
many Zimbabweans who are desperate for support from Britain. To those on the
left who suffer from post-colonial guilt, I quote the mayor of Harare, who
said in March:

      "The world must know this is not a black and white issue. It is an
issue of the blacks in Zimbabwe suffering".

      The Government have been slow to react to Mugabe's crimes and loth to
accept the reality that is Zimbabwe. In a reply to a question from me, the
Secretary of State for Defence said that "the Zimbabwean armed forces . . .
have continued to make a stable and mature contribution to Zimbabwean
society, which may well have something to do with the training that they
have received from British forces. There is therefore good news from
Zimbabwe, and it is important to put that in the right context."—[Official
Report, 4 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 306.]

      Is that an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations? Those very
armed forces were then already looting in the Congo and spreading the AIDS
pandemic around the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Government have
too often failed to condemn what they would consider intolerable from a
European Government.

      The use of food aid as a political tool by ZANU PF is another
important issue. That food aid is delivered via the World Food Programme,
but paid for in part by the British taxpayer — by our constituents. This
year, the Department for International Development expects to spend £29
million on aid to Zimbabwe — double last year's contribution. According to
the WFP emergency report of 24 January, there have been "several reports of
theft of WFP . . . commodities in the region".

      Besides stealing the aid, ZANU PF claims credit for the aid programme
and pretends that there would be no food aid without ZANU PF.

      At the same time, the WFP and NGOs rely for the distribution of food
on information provided by local authorities. That all too often results in
the unwitting politicisation of aid, as party officials determine who is
deserving and who is not.

      In effect, no one without a ZANU PF party card can register for food
aid. Vast numbers are excluded from aid distribution because party officials
deny their need, and the existing monitoring systems of the WFP and others
are failing because they do not show up those who have been excluded from
the lists.

      Kate Hoey (Vauxhall ): Does the hon. gentleman agree that another
problem that has emerged recently, which was made known to us by members of
the Movement for Democratic Change who were here this week, is that some of
the aid that South Africa is meant to be giving to NGOs and the World Food
Programme is being sold direct to the Zimbabwean Government, who then
control it under their food programme? That food definitely goes only to
ZANU PF members.

      Mr. Robathan: Indeed, the hon. Lady has come up with a good point. The
Grain Marketing Board is used as an arm of ZANU PF — certainly not as an
impartial distributor of aid.

      Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley ): Does my hon. Friend agree with Peter
Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights
Watch? He says: "Select groups of people are being denied access to food".

      He further comments: "This is a human rights violation as serious as
arbitrary imprisonment or torture."

      Mr. Robathan : I do agree, and I will quote a report commissioned by
Oxfam on the practical implementation of food aid. It is dated 8 April and
states: "Recent field research indicates that practices" — that is, of
impartial delivery of relief — "are not upheld with consistency in the field
. . . food aid furnished by USAID and through the WFP is being manipulated
by the Mugabe regime and its supporters, unbeknownst to headquarters in
Washington and Rome."

      Rome is where the WFP has its headquarters. The report continues:
"World Vision's distribution system plays directly into the hands of the
ZANU PF leadership. Based on WV's own explanation of their distribution
process it would appear that local officials have complete control over who
receives food aid at local level." It refers to "extensive accounts of the
inability of members or supporters of opposition parties to access food
aid". I urge the Government to scrutinise and question the system by which
British taxpayers — our constituents — are helping the people of Zimbabwe.
They need help, but it appears that at the moment we may be, to quote again
from the report, "unwitting partners in preserving political power for the
Mugabe regime". The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting
that food aid to Zimbabwe should be cut off? Mr Robathan : As the Minister
will know, I did not say that. The people of Zimbabwe need food aid.
However, it must be delivered so that it goes to those who need it, not via
the Government, who use it as a political tool. President Mugabe has more
willing partners than those unwitting ones of whom I have spoken: that is,
the businessmen who prop up his regime. The EU has a list of 79 individuals
whose assets have been frozen and who are banned from travel. By contrast,
New Zealand lists 133 individuals on its sanctions list. It is interesting
and salutary to note the differences. For instance, Leo Mugabe does not
feature on the EU list. Neither do the wife of the Defence Minister or many
members of the families of senior ZANU PF politicians. Of greater importance
are the names of business people that are omitted from the EU sanctions
list. Welshman Ncube, secretary general of the MDC, said that the
international community will not be shown to be serious about standing up to
Mugabe until it freezes the assets of the businessmen who prop up the
regime. I shall give an example from Wiltshire. According to a report from
The Observer on 24 November last year — the Minister probably reads The
Observer more widely than I do — British citizen Andrew Smith was named in a
UN report for organising bombing raids in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo on behalf of President Kabila. He side-stepped EU sanctions by
operating through his Zimbabwean registered company, Avient. John
Bredenkamp, one of three Bredenkamps on the New Zealand list, is of greater
significance. He has been mentioned in the House on many occasions. As well
as many other allegations, it was reported in May 2000 that he provided half
the initial capital for a diamonds-for-arms deal that involved the
Zimbabwean defence force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN
panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the
Congo uncovered a memorandum of understanding signed by Emmerson Mnangagwa,
the Speaker of Zimbabwe, guaranteeing a $1.5 million loan to Oryx Natural
Resources from Python Services Ltd., one of Bredenkamp's companies.
Bredenkamp is registered in the UK as a director of 11 companies. It is
highly likely that Mugabe's personal wealth, and that of other ZANU PF
officials, is held offshore through companies owned in part by Bredenkamp.
Bredenkamp represents Tremalt, a company owned by trusts registered in the
British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Wight. Tremalt is believed to procure
military equipment and provide cash payments to Zimbabwean and Congolese
defence forces. Bredenkamp acts as Tremalt's representative at monthly
meetings with Vitalis Zvinavashe, head of the Zimbabwean armed forces. That
shows his close personal relationship with ZANU PF. Furthermore, according
to a report by the same UN panel on 16 October last year, Bredenkamp's
Raceview Enterprises supplied the Zimbabwean defence force with $3.5
million-worth of military supplies. Our great ally, the USA, whose President
is coming here today, has banned Bredenkamp from entry. However, he is not
banned from the UK. Why not? Does the Minister share my disappointment that,
in the latest UN panel report on corruption in the Congo, Bredenkamp somehow
succeeded in having his name removed from the list of people recommended for
a travel ban and financial restrictions? Apparently, Bredenkamp has also
recently met the British high commissioner in Harare. Could the Minister
tell us why, without hiding behind some nonsense about the code of practice
on access to Government information, as happened with a recent parliamentary
question? The Minister and the Government have it within their power to
undermine the backers of the dictatorial regime in Zimbabwe. Many of the
same men backed Ian Smith. Why has the Minister not taken action against
people who so clearly profit from the evil of Mugabe's regime? Kofi Annan —
an African, let us remember — said to the UN Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva on 7 April 1999: "No government has the right to hide behind national
sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of
its peoples." It is time that the UN paid attention to that and considered
the situation in Zimbabwe. However, the Minister yesterday wrote to me in
reply to a parliamentary question to say that "we would only go to the
United Nations Security Council for a resolution when we believed that we
would win one. Tabling a resolution on UN sanctions would be certain to fail
and would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory." Perhaps the Minister would
like to explain how Mugabe would consider it a victory to be condemned by
many in the UN? His opponents in Zimbabwe would like to see such public
condemnation by the international community, even if it does not lead to a
resolution. Mugabe's knighthood is within our power. In 1994, the previous
Government gave Mugabe an honorary knighthood. I do not remember the Labour
Opposition protesting. In the Government response to the Eighth Report of
the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Session, they said that they would
keep the knighthood under review. They said: "We may revisit this question
in the future." In reply to my question on 4 November, the Minister said
that that was not an immediate priority. Does he accept that that would be a
clear signal to all in Zimbabwe that Mugabe no longer merits the respect
that ought to be due to a President? The time for prevarication has passed.
Quiet diplomacy has failed. I suspect that there is very little disagreement
in the Chamber about what I have said. Action should follow words. It
discredits this Government that there has still been no Government debate on
the crisis in Zimbabwe. On 17 September 2002 — almost 11 months ago — my
right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said exactly the
same in this Chamber. I have asked many questions this morning, which I hope
the Minister will answer directly. I hope especially that he will reassure
hon. Members that no taxpayers' money will be spent on food aid that can be
used as a political tool by this repressive regime, and that sanctions will
be extended to families of members of the regime and to businessmen
implicated in its corrupt dealings and shady operations in the Democratic
Republic of Congo and elsewhere. I also hope that he will reassure us that
the issue will be raised at the United Nations and kept at the top of the
international agenda, and that, contrary to BBC reports yesterday, Zimbabwe
will continue to be excluded from next month's Commonwealth summit. Will he
also reassure us that Mugabe will be stripped of his knighthood, and that
the UK supports free and fair elections? Above all, the international
community must ensure that there is no fudge that allows Mugabe to retire
and the oppressive regime to continue, led by one of his cronies such as
Mnangagwa or Zvinavashe, both of whom are alleged to have been involved in
the Matabele massacres. As I said at the beginning, this is a debate about
justice for Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe are crying out for our support,
which they deserve. Let us live up to our responsibilities and our moral
obligations and ensure that they receive that support and the justice that
all people deserve. 9.51 am Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I shall be brief, as I
know that some of my colleagues want to speak and I had my 20 minutes or so
a couple of weeks ago. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr.
Robathan) on securing the debate so soon, but it is time that we had a
debate in the main Chamber. I mean no disrespect to Westminster Hall, but we
should debate this issue during Government time. Everything that I believe
about Zimbabwe was chronicled at length in the last debate, but I have four
or five straightforward questions to ask. I support the statement that the
Government should go to the United Nations. The fact that we might lose is
no reason not to do so. I want an explanation as to why we cannot go the
Security Council. If we cannot secure what we want the first time, we might
do so the second time, and countries that are prepared to defend Zimbabwe's
human rights record would be shamed. I also support extending sanctions to
the families of Ministers and others. We could extend them to many people
who can still travel and who use the opportunity to do things such as get
money out of the country. I do not see why we cannot do that just because
the EU does not want to do it. We are not yet in a European Union in which
everything that this country does is controlled by what is said in Brussels,
and I hope that we never will be. We have a greater responsibility than any
other country. Yesterday, I asked Welshman Ncube a straight question about
Morgan Tsvangirai's comment that we should keep a low profile, which the
Minister mentioned in response to my question in the last debate. Welshman
Ncube made it quite clear that there was a time when Britain might have
needed to keep a low profile, but that people were now very keen to use
every opportunity and to do everything possible to move the issue up the
international agenda. Whatever the British Government say, Mugabe will not
change. It is therefore absolutely right to take the lead and to push for
extra sanctions. Some of our European partners, who were represented at
yesterday's meetings, seemed to take a much stronger position. Perhaps they
are waiting for the United Kingdom to take the lead. I must ask the Minister
why we cannot press for sanctions to be tightened. Food aid should be
monitored independently. In a moment, my hon. Friend the Member for
Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) will speak about feeding programmes, which
she saw in action last week. From what I saw, I can agree with everything
that Oxfam said about World Vision. I have no doubt that, in many areas, aid
is not getting through to the people who most need it. Holding a ZANU PF
card is still the best way of getting fed. We need an international,
independent monitoring group, because no matter how good the World Food
Programme is, it does not always monitor how well food gets through on the
ground in the case of every agency, and that is crucial. Finally, will the
Minister request an urgent meeting with the England and Wales Cricket Board
in order to get it to make a statement that the England cricket team
definitely will not go to Zimbabwe next year if Mugabe is still in power? Mr
Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does she also believe
that we should ask people to consider the freedom of the Press in Zimbabwe
and the erosion of justice? Such things—freedom of thought, the press and
justice — are important in a democracy. Kate Hoey : I absolutely agree. I
recently secured an Adjournment debate on the closure of The Daily News in
Zimbabwe. Some people from The Daily News were here for that. It is crucial
that it is put back on the street, but that will not be done through the
law. It will take a long time, as every time a court case is won, it is
simply appealed against. So far, there is still no The Daily News, but I
very much hope that there will be in time for the Commonwealth Heads of
Government meeting in Nigeria. There is a good chance that a special issue
will be produced for that. I hope that that will help to influence some of
our colleagues in the Commonwealth. Will the Minister meet the ECB? It is
clear from what the people from the Movement for Democratic Change said
yesterday, and from my contacts in Zimbabwe, that it would be a great morale
boost if the ECB said that the England team would not go next year unless
there is a change. That would help to ease the pressure a little. It would
not instantly change anything, but it would help. It would also clarify our
position, so that we did not get into the same situation as last time. I
urge the Minister to answer my questions. I hope that he will have a
definite reply about sanctions. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chamber thanks the
hon. Lady for her brevity. 9.57 am Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I hope
to be brief, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the
Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on raising this issue, which is of deep
concern to not only Members of Parliament here, but the whole nation.
Whenever I read newspaper stories about Zimbabwe, it makes my blood boil to
read about what is happening to a once proud, healthy and vibrant country.
It was the food basket for southern Africa, but now has to rely on aid to
ensure that its people get food; 14 million people suffer from food
insecurity, of whom 7 million desperately need food aid. I endorse
everything that has been said about more effective targeting of food aid to
ensure that the Government do not continue to use it as a political tool to
prop themselves up. Robert Mugabe talked about economic justice for the
black majority, which is his excuse to grab white farmers' lands.
Considering what has happened since then, I ask whether there is economic
justice for the black majority in Zimbabwe. The answer has to be no. Despite
the reasons given for the Government-sponsored land-grab, land that used to
be productive now is not. Some of the people on that land are receiving some
of the food aid that is being doled out. The livestock have been eaten and
the crops simply were not harvested. There is also the AIDS pandemic, which
has been mentioned. Mr. Robathan : Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not
just white commercial farmers, many of whom were Zimbabwean, who were driven
off their land? Black farmers and their work forces were also driven off
their land. Mr. Evans : Indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. More than
anybody, the black majority in Zimbabwe have suffered by losing their jobs
and livelihoods and having no future for themselves and their families. They
have been made desperate by that ill thought-through policy, which simply
has not worked. On the AIDS front, it was predicted that 130 000 people
would die last year. Zimbabwe's future work force is dying year by year, but
that is not being properly tackled. Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): Does
my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason for the AIDS pandemic is
malnutrition and the inability of people to resist infection? That partly
explains why AIDS is such a massive problem. Mr. Evans : Absolutely. What my
hon. Friend mentions, coupled with the fact that the Government are not
focused on the problem at all, means that hundreds of thousands of
Zimbabweans will be condemned to the fate suffered by others last year.
Urgent action is needed. As a result of the awful and desperate situation in
Zimbabwe, the tourist trade that used to flourish there is drying up. People
will not go to Zimbabwe, because they fear for their own safety as they read
about how white farmers are killed on their own farmland. Kate Hoey: Does
the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not only the farms left desolate,
but the number of wild animals that have been killed? In the end, there will
be no animals to go and look at — none of the wildlife. Some of the terrible
things that have happened are almost too difficult even to talk about. Mr.
Evans : I agree with the hon. Lady — I shall call her my hon. Friend —
because we have seen a whole industry ravaged and people so desperate that
they have resorted to desperate actions. This is a question of whether they
live or die, so they have been forced to take desperate actions, which have
a ripple effect. There has been a brain drain from Zimbabwe to neighbouring
countries and other parts of the world. Of course, there has been a large
migration to neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Botswana, which
gives them further problems. Many questions have been asked, but I shall add
a few more for the Minister's winding-up speech. The creation of the
Zimbabwe Freedom Movement is hitting the headlines. That group of people
wishes to remove Robert Mugabe by force. Will the Minister accept that the
lack of progress is leading many desperate people to take desperate action
themselves? Will he comment on the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement? There are
rumours that Mugabe will attend CHOGM in Abuja in December, which fills me
with dread. Even the rumour that that is being discussed must be put to
rest. Will the Minister give an assurance that President Mugabe or, indeed,
Zimbabwe will not be represented at CHOGM in December? Such an assurance is
vital. I am a big supporter of the Chevening scholarships that we run in
Zimbabwe. I hope that the British Council will continue to administer them
and to ensure that the future leaders of Zimbabwe have an opportunity and
some hope when they come here. I hope that there are no political
machinations in Zimbabwe to get some of the key ZANU PF people on to those
scholarships. I want them to be opened up to the people, not to be available
only to a small select group. I was disgusted when I saw that President
Mugabe's family were going shopping in Paris. We talk about a common
European foreign policy, but we cannot get even this matter right. Does the
Minister really believe that smart sanctions are working? Surely they should
be much wider and enforced more effectively than they currently are. It
looks as if such people are cocking a snook at the whole world every time
they — or, indeed, members of their families—break the sanctions or
businesses are created to sidestep them. Does the Minister really believe
that the quiet diplomacy that we talk about is making any progress whatever?
Is not the lack of progress leading to huge frustration in Zimbabwe? Mr.
Pike : The hon. Gentleman talks of economic sanctions. Will he accept that
South Africa, which could play an important political role, could also play
an important economic role, particularly on energy? It is some time since
the energy supplied by South Africa has been paid for. Mr. Evans : South
Africa is key, as it is not just what we can do in the European Union,
United Kingdom or United States that matters. I hope that it will play a
more effective role in the situation. Will the Minister tell us about his
discussions with South Africa on ensuring that it plays a more vital role
within the community of African countries? It could bring pressure to bear
on Zimbabwe in several ways to ensure that its regime is changed. When
Nelson Mandela visited London a couple of years ago, he gave a tremendous
speech in South Africa house. He said that political leaders should know
when to go, and we all know what that was code for. At the Earth summit in
Johannesburg last year, I was in a lift with a representative from Zimbabwe.
I saw his pass and asked him what future there was for the people in
Zimbabwe. He asked what I meant, and I said, "Well, what with all the
starvation and the awful atrocities that are taking place in Zimbabwe." He
looked at me and said, "Don't believe everything you read in the
newspapers." As he walked away, he turned round and smiled at me. I want to
see the smile taken off his face and those of a number of other people in
Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean delegation had arranged for two busloads of people
to travel down from Zimbabwe so that they could protest outside our hotel in
favour of Robert Mugabe. They were brought down by coach, fed and then taken
back by coach. Such artificial demonstrations mean nothing to me or, I am
sure, the South African population. We must do something through the United
Nations, and we must be far more effective. Our fear that we may not secure
a resolution should not block our attempts; it is the right thing to do. I
hope that the Government will listen to what we say today. 10.6 am Ms Sally
Keeble (Northampton, North): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr.
Robathan) on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for
Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on organising yesterday's conference and on her other
work. I remind the hon. Member for Blaby that history in Zimbabwe did not
start in 1997, and that the saga of UK involvement in Zimbabwe has been
problematic for some time. Mr. Robathan : I did not say that it did. Ms
Keeble : We will return to that later. I spent last week in Zimbabwe looking
into the circumstances of people who are living with HIV/AIDS and drought
under their Government's spectacular economic and political mismanagement.
In particular, I considered the impact on children. It was part of a wider
visit through Lesotho and South Africa as well, but for the avoidance of any
doubt, I travelled independently to Zimbabwe. I was self-funded to ensure
that I could be impartial in reaching my judgments. The previous week, there
had been a lot of publicity about my hon. Friend the Minister's speech in
Cape Town, with headlines of "no political change, no aid". I must say that
having seen what is happening inside Zimbabwe, my conclusion is that our
approach is wrong. Zimbabwe is collapsing under the combined weight of the
crumbling economy, the staggering HIV/AIDS infection rates and hunger. That
is destroying the present adult population, but, perhaps worse, it is also
creating a time bomb for the next. There are an estimated 1 million orphans,
many of whom are HIV positive, and children are homeless, weakened from
hunger and sometimes abused. Of course, to provide assistance or succour to
the Zimbabwean Government would be a disaster. However, there is a strong
network of non-governmental organisations, both international and local,
which is involved in food distribution and building up public services.
Those organisations provide care in the community for people living with
HIV/AIDS and counselling and support services for orphans and vulnerable
children. I met many people during my visit, and I thank them for their
generosity in showing me their work and explaining their experiences. I do
not intend to name them, but I met many people with ideas, networks and huge
ability. What they lacked, strikingly, were the resources and support to be
able to provide services to their communities. I strongly believe that those
networks must be used to increase food aid — especially targeted food
services — and to build up services to people with HIV/AIDS, including
orphans. At the same time, we must greatly increase pressure on ZANU PF for
a political settlement. My hon. Friend the Minister will cite the work being
done on food and HIV/AIDS, but the food aid being provided is completely
inadequate. Many criticisms have been made of the distribution of food
provided by the international community, some of which have been repeated
this morning. I have gone through the methodology, visited a food
distribution centre, and spoken to people at different levels in Zimbabwe,
and the basic distribution system has integrity. However, there are
problems. Organisations have to compromise with the Government in order to
operate. The large organisations carry out the distribution. Mistakes have
been made, and I have spoken with the organisations mentioned by the hon.
Member for Blaby. Smaller organisations are excluded, but as they can get to
some of the most hard-to-reach communities they have an important role. It
is a tribute to the logistical skills of the people involved that food is
distributed across the country in difficult circumstances, feeding up to
half the population. It is a huge and complex job. The biggest problem is
the need for more food. Under the scheme that I saw in operation, the World
Food Programme had agreed about six categories of people who qualified for
food aid. The categories included those who had no land or no other source
of food or income, one-parent households, child-headed households, and the
chronically sick—basically, that is those with HIV/AIDS. Previously, 5
percent of those qualifying for food aid did not get it, largely due to
shortages, whereas now the figure is about 22 percent due to the increase in
need and shortages in supply. One in five people judged by the agreed
criteria of the World Food Programme will not get food aid. I have been
through the figures in detail with the WFP, and they are accurate. Even
people who get food aid do not get enough to live on; they get 70 percent of
their requirements. One woman told me that they have food aid for three
weeks and they borrow for one. Now that no one has any food, they cannot
borrow. The level of hunger is appalling, as is the lack of food. One
afternoon, I visited a primary school and saw rows of children sitting with
their heads on the desks; they had had no lunch and most of them had had no
breakfast. In Binga, where there have been problems with food distribution,
there have been outbreaks of cholera. I also visited a shelter for street
orphans where the children were fed on a bowl of pro-nutro and two biscuits
twice a day for a month. They were supposed to get food from the Government
supply, not from the international community supply, but had not got it
because the food had been sold off elsewhere. Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton,
South): Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no control of a great deal of
the food being distributed in Zimbabwe? Ms Keeble : No, I am saying
something different. There are different methods of food distribution. The
Government control some of the food, and they use it politically. I am
talking about the food provided by the international community through the
World Food Programme. Some of the organisations recognise the problems, but
the biggest problem that I saw is the lack of food. A fifth of the hungry
people in the categories recognised by the WFP as needing food will not get
anything. Those who do will get only 70 per cent. of their nutritional
requirements—in calories not vitamins, which is what chronically ill people
need. Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister may say about all the money that
we put into HIV/AIDS, professionals in Zimbabwe confirm that the infection
rate is 33 percent, not the 24 percent sometimes claimed, and in some areas
it is much higher. I was told by a nurse at one hospital that 80 percent. of
patients admitted were judged to be affected by HIV/AIDS. Mr. Pike : Are the
majority of the people with HIV/AIDS among those who, in normal
circumstances, would generate the economic wealth of that country? Ms Keeble
: That is right. It is a catastrophe that I saw also in South Africa and
Lesotho. That situation is probably worse in Zimbabwe. There are only 22
testing centres in the whole of that country, with only two serving the
second biggest city, Bulawayo. Perversely, there is no incentive for people
to get tested, as there is nothing that can be done for those who are found
to be HIV positive. They will get no treatment and no extra food. The World
Food Programme already gives some supplements to all families, because
virtually every family is affected by HIV/AIDS. They will get no medicine
unless they can afford to buy it. I saw one shockingly ill victim who could
not even afford to buy aspirin as a painkiller. Mr. Evans : While the hon.
Lady was in Zimbabwe did she see anything of the education programme
informing people about HIV/AIDS and how to ensure that they do not contract
it? Ms Keeble : There were posters but the Government are in denial. All the
incentives are against disclosure. It is extraordinary. In Lesotho one could
talk to people fairly openly about what is going on, but there was a
complete denial of the problem in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at one of the country's
biggest hospitals, when people are found to be HIV positive, "home care
only" is written on their medical notes and they are sent home and never
admitted to hospital for treatment again, so no one at that hospital dies of
AIDS. They are not recorded as being AIDS deaths. I went around with some
home carers to see the work that they do and to talk to some of the people
they cared for. They do not have medical kits or supplies as they do in
Lesotho, for example. They are really just a home visiting team, but no
more. They are looking after thousands and thousands of people. They can
give them nothing other than comfort; that is obviously important, but it
will not deal with the problem. There are up to 1 million HIV/AIDS orphans:
single orphans, who have lost one parent, double orphans who have lost both
and serial orphans who have gone from one carer to the next as AIDS has
killed one after the other. Some of them are HIV positive and they are all
desperately disadvantaged. Quite apart from their need for food, shelter,
someone to care for them and money to pay for school fees and medicines if
they are ill, they also need counselling services. We sometimes concentrate
so much on the material and physical needs, we forget their social and
psychological needs. One organisation had got these children to do memory
books. One little girl came out to show me her memory book, which had a
photograph of her with both her parents in a house in Harare with a nice
garden. Now she is living in a shack with many other children in a
high-density suburb. Her father is dead; her mother is still alive, but a
shadow of the plump, beautiful woman in the photograph. The memory book
said, "If I die before I am 20, please can someone make sure that this is
read to any of my children." These books are heartbreaking. Those needs are
not going to be met by the ZANU PF Government, because they deny that
anything is happening. Yet if the needs are not met the disaster already
engulfing Zimbabwe will also take in the next generation. We in the donor
communities should support the local NGO community groups and networks to
meet the needs of HIV/AIDS patients and orphans, including provision of
antiretrovirals on a planned and systematic basis—the point made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What is needed is a working-age
population that can function and support the work for children. Any
assumption that reconstructing Zimbabwe can wait until there is political
change is mistaken. We need to support the people of Zimbabwe, and use every
possible opportunity and every bit of leverage that we have to put pressure
for change on the Zimbabwean Government. The course on which the ZANU-PF
Government have set Zimbabwe has turned it from a middle-income into a
low-income country, driving the economy into the sand while looking in the
rear view mirror. It is not often that we can see an economy collapse
visibly in front of us, but that is what I saw in Zimbabwe last week. There
were empty factories that looked very nice from the outside but had nothing
inside, and empty shops. One of the more heavily fortified shops that I saw
in one town was a bread shop, but it had no bread. Doctors are on strike and
there is no food. It is a two dollar economy: one based on the US dollar for
people who have access to hard currency and can live like kings — some of
them clearly speculate on commodities and currency and make a vast amount of
money—and one based on the Zimbabwean dollar, which is spiralling out of
control, leaving tragedies behind. Despite all that, there is no guarantee
that the Zimbabwean Government will compromise or change. Some say — it has
been repeated this morning and I saw evidence of it — that the Government
are becoming increasingly militarised, given how they organise the country
and some of the recent Government appointments. They have already stolen one
election, so we could not expect them to give democracy back if they lost
another election, as they almost certainly would. The UK, with our
historical ties with Zimbabwe, must take a lead in pressing for change in
that country, and ensure that the international community takes every
possible step to isolate and pressurise the regime. Many suggestions about
how to do that have been made in the debate. I was in Zimbabwe in 1981: I
used to live in South Africa. The last time I went there from the UK there
was a massacre in Matabeleland, a major drought and pressure on local
newspapers. The outside world walked by at that time, buoyed up as we all
were by Zimbabwe's liberation, and conscious of the horrors of the apartheid
regime to the south. Our failure then to insist on proper observation of
human rights and respect for minorities has cost the people of Zimbabwe dear
over the years, and has made possible the reign of terror in Matabeleland,
which Mugabe has pursued. We know, too, the impact that bad governance can
have on a country. Uganda is still recovering from Amin — its economy is
still not back to the state that it was before he came to power — and Kenya
is struggling to recover from Moi. We cannot allow what should have been one
of the great levers for progress and change in sub-Saharan Africa to be
destroyed by bad governance in the same way as other countries in Africa
have been. We need to increase aid, diversify the channels of delivery and
increase pressure, which includes using the United Nations. I am sure that
there will be a settlement in Zimbabwe and a change of Government, but we
need to ensure as we move forward that there are no compromises on the need
for the proper rule of law and respect for human rights in that country.
10.23 am Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Like other
hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on
securing the debate and setting out clearly the problems in Zimbabwe. He
made some key points to which I hope the Minister will have a direct answer
at the end of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman remarked—without prejudging
the Minister's response and with that exception—there is probably a great
deal of consensus among hon. Members present in the Chamber. I pay tribute
to the other speakers in the debate, particularly the hon. Member for
Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who set out clearly and movingly many of the
difficulties that Zimbabwe faces. She and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate
Hoey) both drew on their own experience. We return again and again to the
question of Zimbabwe. I am in danger of losing count of the number of times,
but I would guess that, in recent years, we have debated this subject in
Westminster Hall on about 15 occasions. Issues such as United Nations reform
have been promoted from discussion in this Chamber to debates in the main
Chamber of the House, so we must hope that the Government, despite their
difficulties and perhaps even embarrassment about Zimbabwe, will find the
time for that to be discussed in the main Chamber. The content of this
debate has been mostly one - way, as was that of its predecessors, but that
does not mean that it has been stale. There remains a great deal of anger
about what is going on in Zimbabwe. I point to just a few of the statistics
about Zimbabwe that grab our attention: 500 per cent. inflation, 80 percent
unemployment and no foreign reserves. During our discussions, we may offer
slightly different figures, but as Welshman Ncube said to us yesterday, the
relevance of the economic statistics from Zimbabwe tends to be rather
short-lived, although we can always be sure that the figures are getting
worse. We now read that the parlous state of Zimbabwe is such that the
Government are raiding tourist locations in a desperate search for foreign
currency, while announcing that they are now providing protection for
tourists who visit the country. It seems that Zimbabwean officials have no
sense of irony. Some 11 million hectares of land in Zimbabwe are under
occupation and are unproductive. In the few remaining areas that are
productive, beatings of farm workers continue. That crime is not committed
on the basis of colour: white and black alike are subjected to serious
violence and abuse. Moreover, as we have heard eloquently expressed this
morning, there is significant political manipulation of the food aid on
which the bulk of the population depends. As the hon. Member for
Northampton, North said, we have reached the point at which independent
monitoring of food provision is needed, and we need to gain a clearer
understanding and greater knowledge of its link with the AIDS pandemic,
which is a scar on Zimbabwe. We have often documented how President Mugabe
stole the election; the legal challenges to that continue. At the same time
he seeks to have his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, convicted of treason on
two different counts. He is not confident that he has a case — none of us
believe that he has even the beginnings of a case — so he continues to
undermine the courts and the judiciary. In case they do something that he
does not like, despite all his efforts, freedom of speech has almost
completely disappeared. We must hope that The Daily News, which has been a
beacon of independent thinking and reporting in Zimbabwe, will be able to
overcome its current problems. We should admire the courage and
determination of the journalists and all those who support that institution.
They take great personal risks to try to get independent comment and
reporting more widely disseminated in Zimbabwe. Militias continue to grow.
The paramilitary nature of rule in Zimbabwe continues. State-sponsored
violence and intimidation is the way of life. Despite that, we are
occasionally invited to believe that there are talks about transition—as you
understand better than many, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from an unelected or stolen
presidency to a proper functioning democracy, or perhaps from one corrupt
ruler to another. We should not confuse discussions with solutions. We are
still a long way from resolving the situation in Zimbabwe. The international
response to what has happened in Zimbabwe continues to be an embarrassment
to us all. It is hard for those of us who are so far away to understand the
position taken by South Africa, and its willingness to tolerate the
situation despite the evidence. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)
remarked, South Africa holds important economic cards in the region and
Zimbabwe is hugely dependent on it. Mr. Pike : Does the hon. Gentleman
accept that one of the problems in South Africa and Nigeria is that they
still do not understand that there is almost unanimous condemnation in the
United Kingdom for what is happening in Zimbabwe? They do not realise that
they have a key role to play in solving the problem. Mr. Moore : The
futility of repeating these comments in Westminster Hall does not stop us
doing so. The message to South Africa and its neighbours must be that there
is unanimity of purpose, not only in the United Kingdom, but across many
parts of Europe and, we hope, in the United States. I do not wish to be
cynical, but one of the reasons for the silence of those countries may be
the increasing cannibalisation of the Zimbabwean economy, which was
forcefully brought to our attention at yesterday's conference organised by
the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The fact that so many South African
individuals and companies have bought stakes in the Zimbabwean economy at
rock bottom prices cannot justify their Government's silence about their
terrible neighbour. As many hon. Members have already remarked, this first
test for the rest of Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development
has been poorly dealt with. How can we take NEPAD seriously and be asked to
continue to support it politically, economically and in other ways, when it
is failing so spectacularly in the first test of Africa's ability to examine
its own governance? It does not have to listen to politicians in the former
colonial country; it can ignore us, as those countries have for a long time.
However, it must listen to the people of Zimbabwe because they are crying
out for change. They are losing their lives, being beaten up, starving and
suffering from terrible diseases. If a similar situation occurred elsewhere
in the world, we would expect more from the European Union and the United
States of America. Their reluctance to engage in this area is depressing. I
hope that, although other foreign policy matters are understandably top of
the agenda, the Government will raise the issue of Zimbabwe with the
President of the United States while he is in the country. However, other
diplomatic efforts are imminent, and it is perhaps more pressing to address
the future Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja. It has been
suggested that there may be attempts to end Zimbabwe's suspension. On what
possible grounds could that be allowed? The troika is divided, but those
members from Nigeria and South Africa who think that the current policy has
failed are surely not serious. Yesterday, President Obasanjo met Mugabe in
Harare, and he left the country with mixed signals. I refer to an agency
report on the ZWNEWS.com website this morning, which quotes President
Obasanjo as saying that he will consult whether Mugabe or Zimbabwean
officials should be allowed to attend the meeting. That cannot be allowed to
happen, but, if the same source is right, Mugabe is already preparing to
pack his bags, saying that "we look forward to attending" the Abuja meeting.
Mr. Robathan : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is so
serious that if there is a move to allow Mugabe to attend CHOGM next month,
it might lead to the break-up of the Commonwealth? Mr. Moore : I hope that
the hon. Gentleman's analysis is not right, but the issue, which has dragged
on for several years, has the potential to wreck the Commonwealth as a
meaningful organisation for the future. It would be helpful for the Minister
to explain what the attitude of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary
will be if Mugabe turns up. We must stop our lowest common denominator
foreign policy. As Welshman Ncube urged us yesterday, we must take a lead
and set out new measures to tighten the grip on the Zimbabwe regime. Britain
should take its rightful place in this proper debate. 10.35 am Mr. Richard
Spring (West Suffolk): I take this opportunity to pay tribute to you, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. Not only have you drawn attention to the situation in
Zimbabwe recently, but when there have been abuses in the past, yours has
been one of the few voices in the House of Commons to bring Members'
attention to them. I applaud you for that. I also warmly congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his outstanding speech.
He summed up the state of affairs and set out clearly both the problems and
some possible ways of addressing the tragic situation. I start by setting
out a few facts about the position on the ground, from an economic and
humanitarian point of view, and its impact. I pay tribute to the moving
speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who only last
week saw for herself what the tragic situation means in practical terms for
the people of Zimbabwe. For example, Botswana has had to build a security
fence to keep out refugees because of the heavy flow from Zimbabwe. Some 2
million refugees have so far fled Zimbabwe, and one of the consequences is a
huge and damaging brain drain. The food situation is dire, with more than 5
million people starving. It is to that terrifying spectre of starvation that
I want to turn first. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs.
Spelman) hosted a forum for international and humanitarian agencies on the
deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Those who have knowledge of the
country's plight recognise that the World Food Programme is doing a good
job. However, serious concerns were expressed about controlling the
distribution of food aid once it goes to the regions. There remains a lack
of transparency about where the food goes once it leaves the hands of the
aid agencies. In some areas, ZANU-PF has a grip on local distribution, and
has even used that life-giving power to manipulate election results
directly. Some agencies are fighting back. They have taken the painful
decision to withhold food aid where there is blatant politicisation. That
cannot be an easy decision when the situation is so grim and overall
supplies are so inadequate. However, it is clear is that unless there is a
more co-ordinated approach, with more systematic checks, food will continue
to be used by Mugabe as a political weapon to prolong his hold over the
country—a telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley
(Mr. Evans). Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a full
independent audit of the process of food distribution? That point was also
made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore).
Does the Minister believe that that should include monitoring the list of
recipients? It is truly horrific that such a tragic situation now obtains in
what was once the bread-basket of Africa. Have the Government made an
assessment of who is best placed to perform such monitoring, and considered
whether that might be the United Nations? The Government have given us
numerous reasons why the UN Security Council cannot get involved, but none
of them stand up to scrutiny—a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall
(Kate Hoey). The impact that conditions in Zimbabwe are having on its
neighbours and the region make a mockery of the claims that the Security
Council cannot get involved because the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal
matter. There are clear indications that several European countries are
feeling increasingly negative about Africa overall because of the inability
or unwillingness of African politicians to either publicly criticise Mugabe
or, more specifically, take more clear action themselves. That is certainly
regrettable. Yet the Foreign Secretary has apparently ruled out the
possibility of a resolution because we might lose it. There is widespread
agreement that there are now sufficient grounds to pass a resolution on
Zimbabwe in the UN Security Council, even if it only deals with the
deploying of UN observers to see that food is properly distributed. Such a
move would be welcomed by the Zimbabwean people, so many of whom face either
malnutrition or outright starvation. To put it simply, the Government must
do more and, if necessary, use a third-party Government to initiate a
resolution at the United Nations. Bringing the issue of Zimbabwe before the
Security Council would surely send a message to Mugabe that the
international community collectively takes the matter most seriously. It
would be a most welcome development. International pressure can also be
brought to bear through the Commonwealth. Yesterday President Obasanjo met
Mugabe in Harare. One of Mugabe's greatest lies is that his people are
somehow the victims of either Commonwealth suspension or EU sanctions. They
are not. They are the victims of Mugabe's tyranny. The Government should
match the strong message sent by the Australian Prime Minister to South
Africa and Nigeria that President Mugabe will not be welcome at the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja in December. We welcome
the fact that President Obasanjo has clearly stated that Mugabe will not be
welcome. That is a clear illustration that this is not a colonial issue, as
Mugabe might attempt to colour it—we must reject that taunt for the
grotesque nonsense it is—but a matter of human rights and democracy. Will
the Government consider championing a group of eminent persons within the
Commonwealth to take this matter forward once again? Zimbabwe should be an
international pariah state. There can be no trimming or shabby deals here.
There is a message that the Government must take to our European partners.
It is simply not good enough to shelter behind a common EU position while
Zimbabwe continues to suffer. We must not shy from unilateral actions by
individual EU member states if that is necessary, and again that point was
made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby
cited New Zealand as an example. Sanctions should be extended and
strengthened to include those business men who bankroll Mugabe's regime, and
they must be rigorously enforced. With that in mind, it is clear that
December will be a particularly critical time for Zimbabwe. The world's eyes
will be focused on not only CHOGM but, perhaps as importantly, the ZANU PF
party congress. It is worth reminding ourselves that President Mbeki
received the backing of President Bush for his policy of quiet diplomacy,
which we were led to believe would result in substantial movement by the
time of this congress, but it is only a matter of weeks away. I echo the
point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike): historically, South
Africa has played an extremely important role in the affairs of Zimbabwe. A
previous South African Government dealt very decisively with the regime of
Ian Smith because they considered that to be in its national interests. In
the last few years, members of the Conservative party have on numerous
occasions urged the South African Government to take much more assertive
action. They have told us that they cannot because that would undermine
Zimbabwe's economic base and stability. We continually told them, "That's
happening anyway. It's going to get worse." Our South African friends — and
they are great friends of this country, and are admirable in so many ways —
have made an historic misjudgment. There are many success stories in Africa,
but they are being drowned out by the terrible tragedy of Zimbabwe, and the
unwillingness of African leaders to act. The fundamental problems of the
Southern African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's
Development cry out for action. I am a true friend of Africa—I was born
there. Many industrialised countries recognise the need to open up their
markets and be more generous with African primary producers. However, I
believe that good will will be dissipated unless the principles of good
governance and peer group review are adhered to and enforced. Given the
apparent failure of President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy and the failure of the
talks between the MDC and ZANU PF, we must set out a road map on how to
resolve the matter. We must point out firmly, but in a spirit of friendship,
to the neighbouring countries of southern Africa that they must take the
lead. We should offer to assist them, in any way that we can, to develop
such a road map, including a plan for a post-Mugabe reconstruction of the
country; that will be a massive undertaking. We can only hope and pray that
the post-Mugabe era ends in a matter of weeks, rather than months. The
people of Zimbabwe do not deserve the tragic fate that has befallen them in
the past three years. 10.46 am The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin) : We have had an
extremely good debate, and hon. Members from all parties — particularly my
hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)— have set out
graphically the tragic state of affairs in Zimbabwe. I do not need to go
over the figures, as they are well known. It is a feature of such debates
that hon. Members ask long lists of questions of the Minister, who then has
very little time to reply to them, but I shall do my best in the short time
available to respond to the points raised. Inevitably, I fear that I shall
not be able to address them all, and where I have not been able to, I shall
write to the hon. Members concerned. Hon. Members have raised four main
issues: stronger sanctions, which they want; why the Government have chosen
not to table a resolution at the UN Security Council; the politicisation of
food aid; and why we have not pressed South Africa to do more. I shall
address each in turn. There is no serious disagreement between anyone in
this Chamber. We all agree where we want to get to; we have some differences
in tactics, but no more than that. The Government's policy is clear and
consistent. It aims to isolate the ZANU-PF leadership by maintaining broad
international pressure on it. At the same time, we are providing
humanitarian assistance to the Zimbabwean people and helping to tackle the
HIV/AIDS pandemic. We continue to encourage democracy and civil society in
Zimbabwe and speak out against human rights and other abuses. I reiterate
our readiness to contribute to Zimbabwe's redevelopment when there is a
democratically accountable Government in place, pursuing sustainable
development and sensible economic policies. We believe that the resumption
of inter-party dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU PF and the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change is a crucial first step towards meeting such
objectives. Unfortunately, the political situation in Zimbabwe is hardly one
in which such a dialogue can flourish. Morgan Tsvangirai has two treason
charges outstanding against him, and the MDC's legal challenge to the
results of the 2002 Presidential election started this month. There have
been further attacks by the Zimbabwean Government on civil society and trade
unionists and, perhaps most alarmingly, yet another clampdown on the
independent media. The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent daily
newspaper, whose courageous chief executive I had the pleasure of meeting
recently, was closed in September. Since then, its offices have been raided,
its computers confiscated, and its journalists and directors arrested. I am
aware of the constant violence and intimidation they face as they go about
their business, and I place on record my admiration for their courage in the
face of such harassment. I shall say a word about our response to the
desperate situation in Zimbabwe in respect of sanctions. With our EU
partners, we imposed targeted sanctions on the ZANU-PF leadership in
February 2002 consisting of a travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo
that are to be continued for another year, following a unanimous decision by
the EU last February, and they are having an impact. I am aware of the
argument for extending the sanctions to include the children of those on the
banned list. We have decided against it as we believe that children should
not be made to pay for the sins of their parents, but we would be prepared
to consider extending sanctions to those found to be propping up the regime,
provided that such sanctions hit the guilty and not the innocent. That
always has to be borne in mind when imposing economic sanctions. Economic or
trade sanctions are not the way forward, because they would have a negative
impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. As hon. Members have described,
they already suffer enough hardship and poverty thanks to the ruinous
policies of the ruling party. As to the possibility of action through the
United Nations, several hon. Members called on the Government to table a
resolution at the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Secretary
made our position clear in the House on June 10 when he said that we would
go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution only if it had a
good chance of being passed. Tabling a resolution now when it would be
certain to fail would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory. The EU put
forward resolutions this year and last year at the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights in Geneva, in which we played a leading part. Regrettably,
on both occasions the resolutions fell to no-action motions supported by a
large number of African countries. Mr. Robathan : There is not much
difference in the spirit with which we view the matter, but it is not good
enough for the Foreign Secretary to say that a motion would certainly fail.
We should flush out those in the United Nations who speak in support of
Zimbabwe. We should hear what they have to say, and very strongly put the
argument against Zimbabwe firmly into the international arena. Mr. Mullin :
As I said, we did that at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and it
did flush out those who were opposed to it, but the resolutions fell to
no-action motions. It is extremely difficult when the countries immediately
surrounding Zimbabwe do not believe it is a matter for the United Nations
Security Council. Commonwealth action has proved possible. The Commonwealth
responded to the crisis by suspending Zimbabwe from its councils in March
2002 following a presidential election that most international observers
judged to be neither free nor fair. The suspension remains in place and will
be discussed at next month's meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government
in Abuja. I shall be attending the conference with the Prime Minister and
the Foreign Secretary, and we hope to have further discussions with
Commonwealth leaders about Zimbabwe. Our position on the issue of Zimbabwe's
suspension is the same as that of the Commonwealth Secretary General, who
has listed five benchmarks where there would have to be progress before
Zimbabwe could be readmitted. The Government of Zimbabwe must first, achieve
national reconciliation and dialogue; secondly, repeal legislation that
prejudices the freedom of speech, of the press and of peaceful assembly;
thirdly, end harassment of opposition parties and civil society groups;
fourthly, address the recommendations of two Commonwealth election observer
reports; and fifthly, engage the Commonwealth secretariat and the UN
Development Programme on a proper land reform programme. I am sorry to say
that there has been little progress towards meeting any of those benchmarks
or the Commonwealth's Harare principles for good governance. There has been
no formal dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition for more than
a year now, and attacks on the opposition, independent media and civil
society continue. On that basis we see no justification for readmitting
Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth councils, and we shall make that clear in
Abuja. I made the same point when I visited South Africa earlier this month.
Mr. Evans : Will the Minister give an assurance that, while Zimbabwe remains
suspended from the Commonwealth, it will not go to CHOGM in December in
Nigeria? Mr. Mullin : The Government will oppose Zimbabwe's attendance at
CHOGM, and I have no reason to suppose that Mugabe will be there. Indeed,
President Obasanjo, who is the host, has made it clear that he will not be
invited. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and others said that we
should do more to encourage South Africa to speak up. We keep in close touch
with the South African Government on the issue, and they want a solution as
badly as we do — more so, indeed. They are in the front line, and might have
to cope with 2 million Zimbabwean refugees. We listen with respect to what
the South Africans have to say. They have the same objectives as we have,
and are working hard behind the scenes to achieve a solution. We see no
advantage in involving ourselves in a public spat with the South Africans,
not least because we are working to the same ends. The point has been made
this morning that there is no use in African Governments signing up to good
governance under NEPAD if they bury their heads in the sand the first time a
hard case comes along. That is precisely the point that I made publicly when
I was in South Africa — it needed to be made there and it was widely
reported. Mr. Spring : Of course we want to enjoy a close relationship with
South Africa. Its role is important and we do not want any rancour between
our two countries. However, the idea of encouraging informal links between
ZANU-PF and the MDC needs to be made more formal if it is to work. South
Africa surely has a role to play in that, as does the Southern African
Development Community, because unless the process is open and transparent,
no movement on that level will be made, if any is to be made at all. Mr.
Mullin : That is perfectly true, and my understanding is that South Africa
has been extremely active behind the scenes. The difficulty is that it is
unclear whether the Government of Zimbabwe has sent an appropriate response.
However, there is no advantage in dividing the Commonwealth along black and
white lines, and to do so would only play into Mugabe's hands. We have
responded to the humanitarian crisis by continuing to honour our commitments
to provide the Zimbabwean people with assistance. The latest estimate is
that 2.5 million Zimbabweans, from a population of around 11 million, are
dependent on international food aid, and that figure is expected to rise to
around 5.5 million in the coming months. We are the largest European
bilateral aid donor to Zimbabwe and second overall, after the United States.
On 23 October, our high commissioner in Harare announced a contribution of a
further £5 million to the World Food Programme's emergency appeal for food
aid, which brings the UK's contribution to humanitarian programmes to £62
million since September 2001. We are doing all we can to ensure that ZANU-PF
does not use international food aid for political advantage, as is the WFP.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North observed that the food
distribution system in Zimbabwe had integrity, difficult though the climate
is, and I take note of that. The Zimbabwean economy is in a desperate state.
The statistics speak for themselves: it is now not only the worst performing
in Africa, but the fastest shrinking in the world. The decline of Zimbabwe's
economy is not due to bad weather, as Mr. Mugabe would have us believe, but
largely to his Government's disastrous economic policies, which have
undermined macro-economic stability and destroyed business confidence. I
regret that it is not possible to find much positive to say about the
current state of Zimbabwe, but I stress that we stand ready to work with any
new Administration that is democratically elected in a transparent, free and
fair process. My hope is that when political change comes it will be
followed by renewed donor support and re-engagement by the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund. We stand ready to play our part when the
time comes. Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. I
remind hon. Members that he has said that he will write to anyone whose
question he has not been able to answer.

      WHAT I am writing borders on the ridiculous and I forgive you if you
laugh as I find myself giggling in between wincing in pain.

      I am typing more or less one handed as a riot policeman tried to break
my fingers and am sitting on the softest cushions in the house and looking
forward to sleeping in my own bed tonight.

      I have been arrested twice today, once for giving out sweets and then
I had to hand myself over voluntarily for apparently being part of the
demonstration. I must report to Police Central at 7 am tomorrow to be
formally charged under the Public Order Security Act (POSA).

      During the morning, news of arrested ZCTU officials reached the WOZA
women and me. We resolved to monitor the situation as the day of protest
began.

      The routes into town from the Industrial area were like the mighty
Zambezi, they were coming to protest by hook or by crook. We arrived close
to the meeting point to find crowds gatherered and only four riot police in
attendance.

      A kind friend had donated sweets to WOZA and we have been using them
in our demonstrations to boost morale so we though we would go into the
crowds and give out sweets.

      Of course we encouraged them to push ahead peacefully to their meeting
place at the Government offices. We got mobbed of course and had to stop
distributing sweets, you see most Zimbabweans can no longer buy them.

      The riot police then came to me and said I was under arrest. I guess
my white skin is conspicuous in a mob of blacks. I confirmed with them that
they were arresting me for handing out sweets and they said yes, and pulled
out handcuffs and cuffed me.

      They also insisted on arresting my WOZA scarf. We have 94 scarves
still in police custody from our Mothers day protest so I volunteered to
remove the scarf carefully off my head and allowed them to arrest it. The
message on the scarf is – WOZA – enough is enough, Sokwanele, Zvakwana.

      They then informed me that they would walk me to the Drill Hall to be
formally arrested. Of course, I consented as the Drill hall is opposite
Government offices where the protesters happened to be headed.

      My WOZA collegues insisted that they would accompany me to be arrested
and invited the huge crowd of upwards 1 000 to come along too, which they
did!

      As we walked, I showed people that I was handcuffed and told them that
I had been arrested for handing out sweets and fighting for our rights, so
many more people also joined the procession.

      The mob began to sing an Ndebele song – ‘we hate this thing you are
doing’, and more people joined in.

      When we arrived at the Drill Hall opposite where we wanted to be, I
asked the crowds if I should go in to be arrested and they said resounding
NO and became excitable.

      I then sat down on the tarmac and told the police to negotiate. They
chose to unlock the handcuffs and release me to the crowd.

      Of course the ZCTU people then came along and began their planned
address, as we were where we wanted to be!

      The leader told us that he had asked for the regional police
commissioner to come and receive a petition from the workers and that we
should remain peaceful singing and try to remain seated. The tarmac was
boiling so sitting down was difficult.

      After some time a police truck full of riot police left the Drill Hall
and seemingly drove away only to return from the other end. About three
vehicles and upwards of 100 riot police were in attendance.

      We were addressed through a megaphone and told to disperse immediately
or face assault. Many people sat down, some started to disperse but many
wanted to see the petition delivered.

      The officer with the megaphone told his troops to advance and dogs
were brought out. They advanced and people began to walk calmly away but the
officer then ordered us to be beaten.

      Riot police prodded us in the back saying we should disperse, the
officer egged them on and they started to prod us telling us to run. We
answered back saying that we would not run as the dogs would bite us.

      Run we were told and beaten until some of us ran and of course the
dogs bit several people.

      I refused to run and walked with WOZA women a distance but then we
noticed that Patricia Tshabalala being taken by six policemen into a truck.

      We feared for her and said we wanted to be arrested. Instead an
officer with a dog said he would release the dog on us. We had not choice
but to walk away.

      I was beaten across my buttocks, arms and legs as I refused to run.
One policeman was beating me and another came saying he also wanted to
‘taste’ me; I I took over 8 blows with batons.

      Finally they let us go and I found a member of WOZA with a head wound
(see picture at right) , she had been beaten on the head and was oozing
blood. After trying to get into two companies to find refuge, we were
finally allowed into a bus company, where we called for help and went on to
have medical attention.

      I then received a call from my lawyer to say the Police had requested
my presence and I had to go and hand myself in, which I did at about 4pm.
After much to and froing I was allowed with Patricia Tshabalala to go home
to report tomorrow morning for charge and Court appearance.

      I gave a statement that I was arrested for handing out sweets and was
force marched to the Drill Hall and was released to the crowd by the police
resulting in me playing a greater part in the demonstration than I had
originally planned.

      I saw a young man badly bitten by police dogs go to hospital and upon
his return they put him back in the cells.

      I know that there are many people who were injured today in the
uncalled for violence as they tried to peacefully disperse. Eight people
from ZCTU remain in police cells in Bulawayo and will go to court tomorrow.

      By Jenni Williams

      Williams is an official with Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA)

      Kubatana.net

Business Day (Johannesburg)

OPINION
November 19, 2003
Posted to the web November 19, 2003

Ivor Jenkins
Johannesburg

EACH day Zimbabwe lurches further towards disaster, with the world seemingly
unable to prevent this from happening. The apparent stalemate in the
political problem-solving process in Zimbabwe is matched by the stalemate
between opposing international interests. SA probably has the greatest
reason for a strong interest in solving the crisis. After all, SA will be
the first port of call for many Zimbabweans when the state finally fails.

SA has assumed international leadership on the Zimbabwean crisis, but it is
difficult to see the positive effect of this leadership. Public space has
closed further with the shutting down of the Daily News and the arrest of
Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions leaders for protesting against the
deterioration in the economic climate. These events provoked strong comment
from the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African
Trade Unions (Cosatu), and even threats of solidarity action by Cosatu. But
the South African government remained apparently silent, even though these
events suggest an increase rather than a decrease in political repression,
and hardly indicate an opening of the space for dialogue.

President Thabo Mbeki and government assure the world that talking is going
on, but these preliminary contacts are deadlocked in very fundamental ways.
It is hardly promising that stringent preconditions are no nearer
resolution, but this is the reality no matter what the South African
government says.

Meanwhile the economic and social fabric continues to decline at an alarming
pace, and the spectre of famine looms large. A failed state and all the
consequences become an increasingly probable reality for Zimbabwe. And if
Zimbabwe collapses, southern Africa will be harmed. Repression in this
context leads to despair and anger. As opposition Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC) spokesperson Paul Temba Nyathi pointed out when commenting on
the launch of the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement a new revolutionary group
violence becomes an option when all other avenues are closed.

This new development the emergence of a political group committed to the use
of violence cannot be a surprise to South Africans, and brings back memories
of the early 1960s. Umkhonto we Sizwe and the African Resistance Movement
emerged where all normal democratic discourse was closed. It provoked much
the same reaction among informed commentators at the time: while repudiating
the use of violence, and objecting to the violence of the South African
state, most warned that this would be the way of the future if change did
not occur.

This is the implication of the MDC commentary, and has been the frequent
comment of many Zimbabwean civic leaders over the past three years. In SA,
the failure of the apartheid state to address the legitimate demands of
ordinary citizens and the thwarting of normal peaceful action led to a long
and violent process, and eventually to "mutually hurting stalemate". The
recourse to violence, however justified, allowed the UK and the US to
maintain a "neutral" position that supported the status quo. This lengthened
both the political problems and the violence, and SA was caught in a vicious
cycle of repression and armed resistance for two more decades.

Here, the push for dialogue was the final answer to the stalemate. The
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) statement issued in 1989 set down the
framework while the Institute for Democracy in SA and other South African
groupings created a second track, bringing South Africans together in a
confidence-building process. Through meetings, most notably in Dakar and
Lusaka, confidence was built between the rivals at war, and formal talks
were able to draw resources, support and inspiration from these unofficial
contacts.

It is dangerous to push analogies between SA and Zimbabwe too far. External
events such as the collapse of the Soviet bloc were very influential. The
near-universal consensus on the need for change in SA was a crucial factor,
too, in forcing dialogue. Regrettably, it is not clear that anything
approaching this consensus is present in Zimbabwe's case.

What then might be the way forward? The launch of a campaign prepared to use
violence to produce change must trigger a strong demand for free political
activity. As was true of SA and the armed struggle, the Zimbabwe Freedom
Movement is an inevitable product of the Zimbabwean government's repression.

While there should be calls for all to repudiate violence, these should be
allied explicitly to demands that "open space" is created. This means that
normal democratic activity and processes should be allowed by the Zimbabwean
government. A free press, the right to peaceful protest, demobilisation of
militia forces and an absolute end to partisan use of state resources are
essential.

However, since a lasting solution is needed, the demands must go further
than merely the creation of open space: unconditional dialogue must take
place. An inclusive process of dialogue leading to constitutional, electoral
and economic reform, must be the final way forward.

The South African government cannot shirk its responsibility. Peace-loving
and democratic Zimbabweans are reaching the end of their tether, and a
peaceful domestic solution is slipping away from them. If SA does not take
decisive action to support these Zimbabweans, there are only two likely
outcomes. A further descent into darkness, with the balaclavaclad Zimbabwe
Freedom Movement reaching towards centre stage.

Or, in the memorable words of Oliver Tambo to the OAU in 1989: "There is
likely to be a competition of solutions by forces that are rightly concerned
and would like to see a solution. In the process, unless Africa comes in
with a solution, with a plan, it might be marginalised and forced in the end
to participate in plans no doubt in good faith by others, which might not
necessarily suit the African interest."

Jenkins is director of the Institute for Democracy in SA's Kutlowong
Democracy Centre in Pretoria.