JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 19

Visit by Zimbabwean Delegation.

Chairman

We now have our final delegation, Mr. Roy Bennett and his colleague Mr. Monty Hunter from Zimbabwe. I am sorry that we were delayed for so long but you are very welcome. Mr. Bennett is a member of the main Opposition party in the Zimbabwean National Parliament, the Movement for Democratic Change. He has been invited to the committee today to discuss the current situation in Zimbabwe, including the crisis of governance, the worsening economy and the land situation. We are concerned by the reports we have received concerning violence, human rights violations and the humanitarian crisis there. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs would like to hear Mr. Bennett's views on what Ireland, the EU and the international community can do to improve the situation.

Before we commence, I will remind the meeting that while members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not.

Senator B. Ryan

Mr. Mugabe is not very fond of the courts anyway.

Mr. Roy Bennett

I thank the members for allowing us the time to present a report on the crisis prevailing in Zimbabwe.

As we sit here, there is a major humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe that has come about as a result of the actions of Mr. Mugabe's regime. We have had a meltdown of our economy. Inflation is running at more than 200%, unemployment stands at 70% and there is reliance on donor countries to provide food for our people. Approximately 7 million people are facing starvation. It should not be so, but it is so because of the direct policies and practices of Mr. Mugabe and the Zanu-PF Government.

The Zanu-PF Government after the 2000 referendum started a land exercise which was to correct the imbalances of the colonial past. It was attributed to race as much of the land was owned by the whites. This was merely a smoke screen to hide the policies of Mr. Mugabe's governance which had at that stage brought about the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. No person in Zimbabwe can ever argue against land reform. What can be argued is that it was left so long and the manner in which it was brought about. Land reform is a process, not an event. The way Mr. Mugabe's Government has handled it, has been as an event for political patronage which has resulted in the total destruction of the economy which was an agricultural based economy.

In Zimbabwe there are signs of change and we are at a delicate stage for the future of Zimbabwe, vis-à-vis, trying to bring Mr. Mugabe's Government to the table, to organise a way forward and help solve the humanitarian crisis. The only way forward is for Zimbabweans themselves to find the way forward. It is a political crisis that exists. Mr. Mugabe's Government refuses to recognise the Opposition and has entered into state-sponsored violence against Opposition members and the people of Zimbabwe. Untilthat crisis is averted, the situation will getworse.

We appeal to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to speak to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen and the Irish Government to assist in bringing about pressure through the EU and other international bodies. The talks due to take place, do so in the best interests of the Zimbabwean people. We hope the Irish Government and people stand in solidarity with the Zimbabwean people in order that we may return to democracy and represent ourselves through free and fair elections.

Chairman

I recognise that Mr. Bennett has had an interesting and colourful introduction to politics, by becoming involved - as some of our Members did - through a crisis in the first instance and helping out through it. That shows his leadership and commitment to his community. It is obvious he has had a strong leadership role since that time he became involved. We here wish to give Mr. Bennett every support we can in bringing a peaceful solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Senator Norris

I welcome the delegation to the committee. I read an article in a newspaper on Mr. Bennett and I understand he has a grandfather from Northern Ireland. He is not a stranger to this island, genetically at least.

One thing that strikes me about the white farming group in Zimbabwe is the way in which they now readily accept the need for land reform. This is an impressive part of their case. They have established some rights too through the development of the potential of the land. Many of the workers there also feel that. The result of an arbitrary and sudden removal of this element - whatever the historical background - has been to the detriment of the entire economy. I understand many of the black workers on the farms and estates regret this action has been taken in such a precipitated manner. I accept the right of the indigenous people to exercise control in their own country, but when do people become indigenous? Is it after two, three, eight, 14 or 20 generations? We have had this problem in this island, Cyprus and so many areas.

My instinct is that Mr. Bennett would have strong support here. I was criticised by a member here present some years ago for describing Mr. Mugabe as a dictator. Events have proved that this description, whether parliamentary or not, was perfectly apt and justified. He has destroyed civil rights in Zimbabwe and has attacked the press in the most extraordinary way. There was another recent expulsion of a foreign journalist who had been there for 23 years. He has closed down the Opposition. There has been murder, torture and arbitrary detention. Some of the European ideas which have been successful in Ireland, such as the granting of full citizenship and human rights status to gay people, have been trampled on enthusiastically by Mr. Mugabe.

I am glad Mr. Bennett has come here and he has helped to raise this issue in our priorities. If the troika of the surrounding countries, led by Mr. Thabo Mbeki, have had very little impact on Mr. Mugabe's actions, I cannot imagine the Irish Government having a huge impact on the situation. We might have some through the EU. Does Mr. Bennett detect any impact from the recent visit of Mr. Mbeki? What is the current state of the Zimbabwean Opposition? Is it safe? Mr. Bennett is a Member of Parliament and it cannot be an easy position. What about the position of Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai who was charged with the capital offence of treason? Is he in a position to be able to take over the leadership if, in the unlikely event, Mr. Mugabe steps down?

Deputy Davern

I welcome the delegation here. I have been very well briefed about the current situation in Zimbabwe from people in my constituency. We have about 26 Zimbabweans living there, all of whom have left their area, including one policeman who had to leave the area. He is an Irishman who was working out there and had to leave. If I were to go to his house for a game of cards, I would certainly get Zimbabwe as well as the cards "on the menu".

What we are anxious to find out is how the European Community with our help can do something. The French authorities recently invited President Mugabe to Paris, and there was an outcry about that. Does isolationism work? What about cutting off the Zimbabwean Government from all other sources, or preventing its representatives from entering any other country? Does Mr. Bennett think that would work? What effect would that have on most Zimbabweans, who would probably know nothing about it? That is the unfortunate aspect. This committee would like to know how it might help, along with the Irish Parliament, to bring about democracy in Zimbabwe.

Deputy M. Higgins

I am glad Mr. Bennett is here to give us valuable information. What role does he see for British involvement? I have been intrigued by how the Lancaster House agreement, which is a vital context in the background of what is taking place today, is somehow forgotten by many international commentators. If we take the two components - two if one was arguing from the other side - when a military conflict ends, people who have participated feel they are entitled to rewards, including pensions. This becomes mixed with the land issue, and the Lancaster House agreement is not worked through. One might well say that regarding the confrontation on the basis of the cost of compensation to landholders and so on, the seeds of that were in the Lancaster House agreement, which was not followed through properly. I am not saying that to be negative, but the question is what initiative might now be taken, or suggested. It would be a component towards a resolution.

Senator Mooney

I express my solidarity with my colleagues in relation to those who are experiencing horrendous difficulties in the pursuit of their parliamentary and non-parliamentary duties in Zimbabwe. I ask forgiveness for not being here earlier, but I had commitments in the Seanad. I ask the Chairman to stop me if these questions have been asked before, and I will be happy to defer, to save time.

Can Mr. Bennett explain the motivation for Mr. Mugabe's recent initiative on the take-over of land? Regarding the Lancaster House agreement, Mr. Mugabe made it quite clear during the guerrilla war and subsequently that he would re-colonise, if I can put it that way, the land of Zimbabwe for the people of Zimbabwe, and would create an environment in which the people of Zimbabwe would reclaim their tribal lands. That was 20 years ago. In the past 12 or 18 months, Mugabe seems to have developed some catalyst to motivate him to go in the direction he has gone. He has now created a situation where there is economic devastation not only for the people at whom he had directed his anger at, but also for his own people.

Notwithstanding the recent initiative by Zimbabwe's neighbouring leaders, I would like to know if there is a cultural difficulty about African states in general not calling for Mr. Mugabe to be overthrown. It seems to me that because he is a black leader and because he came out of a colonial war, there is a cultural obstacle that perhaps is not publicly stated. Mr. Bennett as a white person may be able to answer that more objectively than a black person. I do not mean to create that racial difference, but given the history of white rule in former Rhodesia, I am curious to know if there is a cultural barrier preventing people from saying that Mr. Mugabe should go.

Senator B. Ryan

Robert Mugabe became a dictator about ten years ago, but he was initially the leader of the biggest liberation movement in Zimbabwe. It is unfortunately a classic and tragic example of what power does to people.

My difference with Senator Norris was not about the title, but the use of words like that in an Oireachtas motion, where one has to be a bit more careful. I would not be madly keen on putting down a motion about the "war criminal" Sharon either, because language like that should not be written into Oireachtas motions.

I would like Mr. Bennett to elaborate a little on the shifting mood within the region. We all support what the EU has done, and I would support the strengthening of sanctions, particularly if people like Mr. Bennett were to tell us it is the best way to bring pressure to bear. I am acutely sensitive to the idea of a series of former colonial powers using their muscle with a former colony, with all that that implies. I am also acutely sensitive about the selectivity of the use of sanctions, and the huge resistance in the past to the use of sanctions against South Africa, for instance, in equally oppressive circumstances. I have no problems with the principle involved, but I would like to know how we can best add to what Mr. Bennett has described as the shifting mood in Zimbabwe.

Chairman

The land and the pensions obviously became interwoven, and the inequality in land ownership was one of the issues. The figures involve 4,500 farmers with some 11 million hectares of land, compared to one million black Africans with 16 million hectares. Obviously there is a problem with finding a balance, and different methods have been used to date. What does Mr. Bennett see as the best approach to solving that problem and resolving the problem of the pensions for the war veterans?

Mr. Bennett

I will return to the first national question regarding the impact of the troika and the recent meeting in Zimbabwe which was initiated by the troika. It is international pressure that has brought about the troika's interest in Zimbabwe and the pressure it is applying onRobert Mugabe is due to the African Union, the G8 countries and the NEPAD process.

The visit started a while ago. It broke down because Mr. Mugabe pulled out of the talks and refused to talk to the opposition, laid down pre-conditions to Morgan Tsvangirai that the petition in the courts challenging the presidential election and the flawed processes concerned with the election be withdrawn. He also demanded that the Opposition recognise Robert Mugabe as the democratically elected President of Zimbabwe. The Opposition has said it would enter into any talks with no pre-conditions, and it is virtually impossible for it to withdraw a petition that is constitutionally endorsed by the Constitution of Zimbabwe and by the right of the people of Zimbabwe to challenge processes that show massive evidence regarding the rigging of the election.

As far as the second issue is concerned, it is impossible to recognise Robert Mugabe when one has a process in the courts challenging his legitimacy, and the report from the majority of independent observer missions vis-à-vis the authenticity of those elections, which they all have recognised as rigged, and by means of whichRobert Mugabe forced his way back into power.

Moving on to the Sithole position and thetreason trial of the President of the Opposition, Morgan Tsvangarai, opposition politics within Zimbabwe is a very hazardous business. It is fraught with continual persecution by the State agents. There are numerous cases where Members of Parliament have been detained and tortured. I received a report last night that armed police had fired shots at a labourer on my farm. It is all about opposition politics and trying to intimidate the people into not supporting the opposition, and opposition members into standing down and giving up on politics. The treason trial is becoming more and more of a farce. The more the courts get into it, the more it is exposed that Ari Ben Menashe is a man of very suspect character who has benefited financially from setting up the doctored tape accusing Morgan Tsvangirai of treason. There is more evidence every day that the whole thing is a farce. We believe it will be thrown out of the courts, however biased they might be. Incidentally, the judge sitting on that case has benefited by being given a farm through the land issue. The reasons for that are very obvious. However, even he, under the circumstances, because of the whole matter being a total farce, will not be able to ignore what has happened. It could happen that judgment is reserved so that the travel documents for Morgan Tsvangirai, Welshman Ncube and the other people involved remain with the courts, thus preventing them from travelling and telling the truth about the situation in Zimbabwe.

The EU can assist us very easily as a signatory to certain human rights charters and conventions. The illegitimate Government of Robert Mugabe has a police commissioner by the name of Augustine Chihuri who has just been appointed to a very senior position in Interpol. Robert Mugabe himself has just been to France. It is vital that the European Union stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe rather than with the individuals in the Government of Zimbabwe so that their progress to democracy can continue. By highlighting these events, EU countries recognise Robert Mugabe and his cronies for what they are, and putting pressure on them is a verypositive way of putting pressure on the Mugabe regime.

The British have unfinished business in Zimbabwe. They can assist us once the country returns to democracy, including on the land issue. Initially, through the Lancaster House agreement, they had earmarked moneys for the land reform process, but those were withdrawn when it became very clear that the process was benefiting the cronies and the elite of Zanu-PF and was not being used for the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe or empowering them economically. A landowners' conference in 1998 had put all the mechanisms in place for the land process to move forward. It was Robert Mugabe and the Zanu-PF Government who did not move forward with it. How do we sort that out?

One of the major flaws in the whole Zimbabwean context vis-à-vis independence from the illegal Rhodesian regime and transition to the rule of the people was that there was never a truth and reconciliation commission or any mechanism whereby everything could be exposed and those accountable for whatever had been done could be brought to the fore and those things consigned to the past. As is very obvious right now, Mugabe obviously kept that as a political card up his sleeve so that, when the situation was right and his power was challenged, he would be able to revive all the past imbalances and injustices to draw attention away from the real issues of what was happening in Zimbabwe, and he has done exactly that. Why is the land issue important now? The answer goes back to the last question. He has embarked on the land issue now that his power has been threatened. He has done so in a partisan manner. It is not being done for the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe as an agrarian reform but as a state-sponsored practice whereby the military, the agents of the state, have been involved in pushing people on to land to give the appearance to the region and the international community that President Mugabe is addressing an historic land imbalance, which is not the case at all.

Deputy Quinn

I apologise for not being here earlier, but I have been following the matter. You are very welcome, Mr. Bennett. I would like to recount two experiences. I was one of the international observers at Zimbabwe's independence elections in 1980. It was a wonderful experience, and Zimbabwe is absolutely beautiful. There were only nine members of the European Union at the time, and the bigger countries had not really sent effective delegations, meaning that we, the Danes and the Dutch were the three small countries which actively participated. Richard Townsend from the Department of Foreign Affairs was one of the observers. Bobby Molloy, Paddy Cooney and I were the other three.

The sequel came when President Mugabe came to Ireland with a very large entourage. I made some friends among the delegation and asked them if they were allowed, unlike Soviet sailors, to go outside the programme and do what they liked without having to be part of the entourage. They said that they were, and we arranged to meet. I was Minister for Labour at the time. We went off and took them for a tour of Dublin, ending up having a meal. I am not sure if I can remember the name of the man to whom I was talking, but the question was very pertinent. He was secretary to the Prime Minister's office. I believe he subsequently became a Minister in his own right. He proceeded, over a meal at about 11.20 p.m., to ask me how I had got re-elected as a politician. When a few friends and I analysed that afterwards, it occurred to us that he was really asking the question - this was in 1986 - of how one stops politicians from becoming corrupt. I had come back from Zimbabwe with a great sense of optimism for the whole of Southern Africa. In a strange sense, UDI had forced an independent structure on its economy, something other countries did not possess, such as Northern Rhodesia, which became Zambia. Forebodings of corruption were there.

I have watched some of the discussion on the monitor and read the documentation. We wish you well. If there is to be any kind of future for Southern Africa, a free and democratic Zimbabwe, along with South Africa, is our only hope. Please let us know of anything we can do in Europe.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Bennett might make some final comments.

Mr. Bennett

The most pertinent point is the shifting mood right now in Zimbabwe and the chance of a peaceful settlement to the country's issues. It is vital that anybody showing solidarity with Zimbabwe exhorts pressure or speaks out very strongly in favour of that process continuing. In June the opposition, together with civic society and the labour movement, will bring the people on to the streets of Zimbabwe to demonstrate against Robert Mugabe. It is vital that he knows that he will have no support from any quarter should he turn his guns on those people. That is the most vital point that I can make. I ask this committee, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the European Union and anybody else with any influence, to get him to accept the will of the people of Zimbabwe and ensure that, should the guns be turned on those who come out on to the streets, President Mugabe is totally finished in everyone's eyes.

Chairman

Thank you very much. I am sorry that we were delayed and that it took so long. However, I am glad that, during your brief visit, I was able to fit in a time to meet you. Thank you for appearing before us today and for making a very informative presentation. I know that the Shona people regard you as "Pachedu", or "one of us", and that speaks volumes. It would be difficult to find a better way to be regarded in your land. We will support your work both at European Union level through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and at the United Nations level where we believe it is important that you get support. We will keep a watchful eye on what happens in terms of the support you would like to get for the peaceful demonstration in June. We have people here who are very good at participating in peaceful demonstrations if you would like to borrow some of them. We wish you every success with your work. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bennett

Thank you very much, Chairman, and I thank the members of the committee.

Deputy Quinn

Chairman, I invite you and the secretariat to draft a resolution for our consideration, along the lines of what has been proposed, that would receive all-committee support. That resolution could then be conveyed directly to the Zimbabwean Embassy, located in London, in advance of the June event.

Chairman

We will do that.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. sine die.