I discovered that the “most significant” of its Declarations were in 1971 and 1991. In the 1971 Declaration there appears:

We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage.

This was issued at the Heads of Government Meeting in Singapore. The 1991 Declaration contains a similar message.

Having regard to current events in Zimbabwe (report, March 13), the timing of Commonwealth Day seems ironic to say the least. But not as ironic as the place where the 1991 Declaration was issued: Harare.

Yours faithfully,
DAVID JEFFREYS,
c/o Queen Elizabeth Building,
Temple, EC4Y 9BS.
March 12.

Time is the only factor that will pave the way to peace and good governance in Africa. The only way to eradicate greed and power-hungry despots is through education that has not been tainted with hatred of race. Education is not an over-night realisation of the unknown; it’s a knowledge that grows within you over a long period of time. I am a white Zimbabwean who fled the country 18 months ago for fear of violence and because of the decline of the economy. My business was agriculture-based and when the “violent land issue” started, I saw the future dwindling before my eyes. On occasions I was forced, through legislation, to sell my end produce for less than it cost to produce. I got out before I couldn’t afford to do so.

I, in common with thousands like me, would love to return, but cannot until there is a radical change in government.

The people of Zimbabwe are special and are strides ahead of the rest of Africa when it comes to understanding one another. Colour plays no part in the hearts of true Zimbabweans. I pine for those friends and relatives I left behind, both black and white. Hopefully their nightmare will soon come to an acceptable end.

Kevin Pringle, Cumbria

Their courage is astounding

I MUST take issue with one paragraph of Matthew Parris’s otherwise excellent article on Zimbabwe. He hopes “that if any group must be scapegoated they are the residual white population, for it is small, they are mostly elderly, and a place for all of them can be found here”.

I believe this to be untrue: the white farming population consists largely of families like that of my daughter’s schoolfriend and her husband whose children are working with them on the farm, at university or still at school (some have lost their books and term’s — or even year’s — work when their houses have been trashed), but they are first, second or third generation residents who do not have the wherewithal to leave, and in any case do not wish to.

The courage shown by these people is astounding. Those of us who have been receiving regular bulletins from them as well as what we have all seen in the media can only admire and hope.

Joan Atkins, Cambridge

Where is ‘liberal’ support?

WHILE Matthew Parris was growing up in Zimbabwe (then still Rhodesia) I was sent on my first African assignment for The Times to the Nigeria-Biafra war. Then, and in the following years, I met and interviewed several of the leaders of newly independent Africa – Gowon, Obote, Arap Moi, Nyerere, Kaunda and even Hastings Banda and Idi Amin. The rather naive idealism that many of my colleagues and I had inherited from the 1960s soon gave way to the realisation that democracy meant nothing and that the pursuit of power was absolute.

The degree of brutality and venality in former British colonies varied considerably, of course, and the worst examples were certainly evident in countries such as Zaire and the Central African Republic. But the indignation of the liberal world centred on South Africa: the oppression and slaughter of blacks by blacks was considered as nothing by comparison with the evils of apartheid.

South Africa’s peaceful transition to a multi-racial, multi-party democracy is one of the most encouraging events of my lifetime. Despite its economic problems and the alarming growth in domestic crime and violence, it is one of the most enchantingly beautiful and agreeable countries on earth. Yet somehow I sense that the “Hampstead Hussars”, who for so many years bravely lent their support to the cause by boycotting South African grapes and oranges, don’t want to know any more. Why could this be, I wonder?

John Young, London

The question of expulsion

SHOULD Zimbabwe be thrown out of the Commonwealth? No. Robert Mugabe may be no angel and electoral practices may be seriously flawed, but that is par for the course throughout much of the Commonwealth. The call for Zimbabwe to be expelled comes from the “white” Commonwealth countries and exposes their racist bias in putting concerns about a white minority in Zimbabwe ahead of black majorities elsewhere (in other Commonwealth countries with fewer democratic credentials).

Murray McRobie, Streatham

Quitting the club

THROWING Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth is not an option any longer. It is three months too late to have the desired effect. We should quit the club instead, because whoever wins this so-called election will need billions of dollars to get the economy back on track. The African countries that voted against sanctions should be forced to contribute. However, it is quite obvious that they can’t do this and buy arms, so guess who will get to foot the bill?

David T. Harris, Shrewsbury

Protecting the innocent

WHAT difference will it make if Zimbabwe is thrown out of the Commonwealth? The African countries will say it was a “free and fair” election to protect themselves, and the other countries will not stand up against them. Britain should be a little less concerned about hunting foxes and worry more about innocent people being murdered and maimed. The Commonwealth is doing nothing for the “real” people of Zimbabwe, so keeping them in or throwing them out will not protect the innocent.

Lesley Cripps, Wallop, Hampshire

Sending a clear message

AS THE Commonwealth continues to hold back and does nothing to put a stop to Mugabe’s reign of terror, I can only assume this is a clear message to Mugabe that it is all right to behave in such a brutal and undemocratic manner in order to win an election. I think it is time the Commonwealth was disbanded. Britain should cut the ties that bind her to her former colonies and set them adrift.

Margaret M. Lloyd, Portishead

There is no shadow of doubt about this, even less than there was two years ago in the parliamentary election which gave Morgan Tsvangirai, the former trade unionist who leads the Movement for Democratic Change, the moral victory as well as an impressive 57 out of 120 seats for the MDC. Zanu-PF rigged that election, too; but the voters’ refusal to be intimidated convinced Mr Mugabe that the job had not been done well enough. The popular Mr Tsvangirai was a credible challenger for the presidency. Mr Mugabe then set out to frustrate that challenge by every illegitimate method and parliamentary trick at his command.

The electoral register was rewritten for this contest. Rural voters had to be vouched for by village chiefs, Zanu-PF trusties drawing state salaries. As “proofs of identity” qualifying them to vote, urban dwellers had to produce title deeds, utility bills or rental agreements, effectively disenfranchising hundreds of thousands living in shanty-town shacks. The domestic press was muzzled by laws that made it a crime to print news of which the Government disapproved; foreign reporting was tightly restricted and the BBC banned from Zimbabwe during the election campaign.

Yet even so, under the most intense intimidation, the MDC kept up its election rallies and voters risked beatings or worse to listen. Voters formed long queues, knowing how little their vote would be allowed to count; in panic, urban booths were shut. The turnout itself tells the story: suspiciously low in the towns where Mr Tsvangirai’s support is strongest, highest in those parts of the country firmly in Zanu-PF’s grip.

Thus has the bravest, best organised and most tenacious democratic opposition movement in Africa’s history gone down to defeat. Mr Tsvangirai, aware of the great danger to which protest would expose his many supporters, has appealed for calm. He himself may now, outrageously, be arrested on charges of treason. Mr Mugabe has said as much. A man who, back in 1982, sent in brigades to massacre 20,000 Ndebele must be judged ready to carry out his threat.

Mr Tsvangirai, and the men and women who have conquered their fear in his support, deserve the unstinting support of all African leaders with any claim to democratic legitimacy. They are not getting that support. The Organisation of African Unity, true to its reputation as a despots’ club, has pronounced the poll to be “transparent, credible, free and fair”. Kenya’s Daniel arap Moi has congratulated his “dear brother” on the “confidence and high esteem the people of Zimbabwe hold in you”. Tanzania’s President delights in his “richly deserved” triumph. The observers sent by South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, ferociously mocked at home for their complacency, term the outcome “legitimate”, though they could not quite bring out the words “free and fair”.

The teams sent by Nigeria and the Commonwealth, each headed by former Nigerian rulers who never stood for election themselves, have yet to pronounce. But it is likely that Africa’s leaders will refuse yet again to acknowledge how evil has betrayed African hopes. South Africa and Nigeria, along with Australia, have been entrusted with advising the Commonwealth. If this body splits along racial lines and does nothing in defence of the principles for which it stands, it is finished. So will be Tony Blair’s dreams of a new compact for Africa, with fresh aid to reward a break with its terrible past. Africa’s leaders have a choice between that fresh start, and solidarity with their “brother” Mugabe. Mr Blair must insist at once, and mean it too, that they cannot have both.