Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 2007

Vol. 642 No. 6

Situation in Zimbabwe: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dermot Ahern)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, concerned at the dire economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe, the plight of many millions of people suffering from food shortages, the suppression of political activists and interference with freedom of the press:

welcomes the holding of the Second EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon and the EU Presidency's intention to ensure the current grave situation in Zimbabwe is appropriately raised and discussed at the summit;

calls on the Government to continue its efforts, including through the European Union, in support of the promotion of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe;

welcomes the mediation effort being undertaken by President Mbeki of South Africa on behalf of the Southern Africa Development Community aimed at promoting political dialogue and agreement between the Government of Zimbabwe and the opposition parties in the future democratic governance of Zimbabwe, and encourages the member countries of SADC to continue to be persuaders for change in Zimbabwe and to ensure the maximum flow of information from the current mediation process;

emphasises the critical importance of a level playing field being established in order to guarantee the conduct of free, fair and democratic elections in Zimbabwe in 2008;

calls for full compliance by the Zimbabwean Government and parties with the SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic Elections and encourages the broadest possible international observation of any elections held in Zimbabwe in 2008; and

welcomes the continuing substantial direct assistance which Irish Aid is giving to the people of Zimbabwe, amounting to over €17 million in the past two years, and urges the Government to continue this support.

The Taoiseach takes the grave political, economic and human rights situation in Zimbabwe most seriously. Ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering desperately in a country racked by hyperinflation, which reached 8,000% in September, and with unemployment now estimated at 80%. In rural areas, the economic crisis and government mismanagement have compounded the effects of drought and many now depend on food aid. Hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans, including much needed professionals, have emigrated to neighbouring countries. The deteriorating economic situation, worsening poverty and increased migration are in turn having an impact on those affected by the HIV-AIDs pandemic. Only today I have received a briefing paper from Trócaire which strongly underlines the gravity of the situation.

There are, unfortunately, no signs on the ground that the Zimbabwean Government is willing to change the destructive policies which have brought the country's economy to its knees. In addition to the economic hardships, there are continuing reports of brutal repression of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, and other civil society groups perceived to be challenging the Zanu-PF ruling party. There is a pervasive atmosphere of intimidation and violence towards those who seek change in the country.

I wish to share time with Deputy Andrews.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Outrages such as the ill-treatment of opposition activists and supporters in custody infringe not only UN human rights standards, but also those standards which African governments have signed up to, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Ireland and the EU strongly believe that African leadership is the key to encouraging progress towards economic and political stability. We support the talks between the government and opposition in Zimbabwe which are being mediated by President Mbeki under a Southern African Development Community, SADC, mandate. A review of Zimbabwe's economy is also being undertaken by SADC Finance Ministers.

I understand that some progress has been made in the political talks and that it is expected that they will conclude shortly. This is encouraging in so far as it goes. Implementation of any agreement reached will be crucial and must bring about real policy change. The Zimbabwean people must have a chance to express their will without fear in the presidential and parliamentary elections which are due to take place in March 2008.

Although the signs so far are very mixed, the EU places great priority on free and fair elections and the creation of a level playing field and we hope to work together with African partners, including neighbouring countries, the African Union and SADC, to ensure that the elections are in line with newly-developed African best practice standards. We would like to see real change take place in Zimbabwe as fast as possible. In practice, while Europe and the rest of the world can add their voices and their weight to pressure for change, it is Zimbabwe's own neighbours who have most influence.

Ireland stands ready to assist the Zimbabwean people in any way we can. Ireland has significant historic links with Zimbabwe and our own national experience found expression in our support for the country's decolonisation struggle in the 1970s. The ambassador and officers from the embassy in Pretoria regularly visit Zimbabwe in order to assess the situation and meet with members of the estimated 3,000-strong Irish community there.

Ireland is among those EU member states which have most strongly condemned human rights abuses and urged political and economic reform in Zimbabwe. The Embassy of Ireland in Pretoria monitors allegations of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and raises issues of concern with the Zimbabwean Government at every available opportunity. The Secretary General of my Department, when he visited Zimbabwe recently at my request, raised Ireland's concerns with Zimbabwean officials in Harare in June and also had talks on Zimbabwe with South African officials in Pretoria. Ireland's embassies in the region have consistently highlighted our concerns and pressed those concerns. Ireland has also supported EU action to raise Zimbabwe in the appropriate UN human rights bodies.

Since 2006, Ireland has provided over €17 million to alleviate the hardships suffered by the people of Zimbabwe. This funding is focused on humanitarian assistance, mitigating the impact of HIV-AIDs, and is channelled through UN agencies, Irish and international NGOs, Irish missionaries and local civil society organisations. Ireland does not give any direct funding to the Government of Zimbabwe.

The EU operates an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and a targeted visa ban against Zimbabwean leaders. Contrary to what the regime would suggest, there are no sanctions against the ordinary Zimbabwean people. The EU is a major provider of aid to the Zimbabwean people and this commitment to their welfare will remain in spite of government actions. The EU consistently uses political contacts with countries in the region to highlight concerns about Zimbabwe. Representatives of the local EU Presidency in each of the SADC countries have this year expressed to their host governments the concern of the EU and its member states over the developments there.

In October 2007, EU Foreign Ministers expressed readiness to respond appropriately to tangible results from the SADC initiative and President Mbeki's mediation. When the council last discussed Zimbabwe on 19 November, I and my EU colleagues agreed that President Mugabe will hear a tough and clear message on the EU's abhorrence of his policies at the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon.

I would like specifically to address the issue of Zimbabwe and the EU-Africa Summit. Ireland fully supports the EU-Africa Summit and believes that this is an important step forward for EU-Africa relations. It will mark the beginning of a new phase in the Europe-Africa relationship — reaching beyond the historic coloniser-colonised and donor-recipient relationships to form a true partnership of equals, allowing Europe and Africa to face common global challenges together — global challenges which range from development and governance, to climate change and energy, to migration and trade and many other issues. However, we have to be aware that there are other major international players, notably China, with a growing interest in Africa. Europe cannot take its relationship and its role for granted.

The Joint Africa-EU Strategy, which will be adopted at the summit, also places respect for human rights, freedom, equality, solidarity, justice, the rule of law and democracy at the centre of this partnership. This Government is firmly committed to all the principles and values on which EU-Africa partnership is based.

There is much of a positive nature to highlight at the summit and there are also country situations of common concern on the EU-Africa agenda. These include the tragic situation in Darfur; the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia; the violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where appalling atrocities have been committed against civilians; and the situation in Zimbabwe. A consistent EU approach to all of these crises will give the lie to allegations from President Mugabe that EU policy is influenced by former colonial associations.

The Government regrets the fact that President Mugabe has been invited to Lisbon. We had urged that other options for Zimbabwean representation be fully explored. It became clear that no alternative was possible. However, along with almost all EU member states, we do not wish the EU's relations with an entire continent to be held hostage to one country's problems. The fact is that 23 of the 27 member states will be represented at Head of State or Government level in Lisbon, along with President Barroso and High Representative Solana. This includes, for example, Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands, two of the countries which share our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and which cannot be accused of downplaying such issues internationally.

We do not believe that the correct response to the tragedy of Zimbabwe — or to other even more tragic situations on the continent — is to preach from a distance. Rather, we believe that we should work in partnership with the 53 nations of Africa to strengthen our shared values and to tackle African and global challenges together on the basis of those values. We believe the summit should be about the substance of the EU-Africa relationship rather than about attendance.

Irish links with Africa go back for decades to the work of our missionaries and charitable organisations and Ireland has a long and continuing history of engagement with Africa. We have good relationships with many African states, which appreciate the similarities in our historical experiences. Africa is the focus of our rapidly increasing Irish Aid programme and seven of our nine programme countries are in sub-Saharan Africa. Ireland also has a distinguished peace-keeping record in Africa.

The Taoiseach's attendance at the summit this weekend will be in keeping with this proud tradition of Irish engagement with Africa. The summit will be the opportunity to highlight the depth of the EU's concern in relation to developments in Zimbabwe. It is important that Ireland be represented at this summit. It would have been the easiest thing to turn around and, in effect, boycott it, and, as I said earlier, shout from a distance. I strongly believe Ireland should be represented at the highest level in order that we are part of the ever increasing contact with the African continent. It is far better that we treat this as a matter of substance rather than on attendance of particular people.

Deputy Barry Andrews

I thank the Minister for allowing me to share time with him and the Whips for allowing the motion to be tabled and, in particular, AWEPA for allowing us to have a meeting on the issue of Zimbabwe about two weeks ago here in the Oireachtas which was attended by 20 members of the Dáil and Seanad and by lawyers and activists from Zimbabwe and Amnesty International. The whole purpose of the initiative was to raise awareness of Zimbabwe, the problems there and to explore ways in which we can contribute to its improvement. That we are taking an initiative such as this boosts the morale of those people who stand up for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe. We were inspired to a certain extent by the view that although there is little enough we can contribute, that was not an excuse to do nothing. It was decided to try to put down an all-party motion on the subject. We are delighted to at least have this debate.

The sanctions applied against Zimbabwe in the past few years have not been effective. If their intention was to try to change the behaviour of the regime or change the regime itself, they have not been successful. We need to consider different ways of trying to improve the lot of the ordinary Zimbabwean.

The SADC initiative is welcome, as is the role of President Mbeki, but we must be cognisant of several issues. First, President Mbeki has tried in the past and has not succeeded. We must bear in mind that he has difficult domestic issues to consider that hamstring his efforts to mediate successfully between the opposition and the Zimbabwean Government. He has perhaps not been as stringent in applying the principles the ANC and his colleagues relied upon when they were seeking independence and freedom in the 1980s and before. We must also bear in mind that the Zimbabwean regime is on its best behaviour and looking for an economic package in the context of the mediation taking place and the forthcoming elections. All of these factors must be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of the SADC initiative. Great pressure must be put on the South African Government, and Mr. Mbeki in particular, to make him a persuader on behalf of the principles to which the Minister referred, which helped found the Southern African Development Community and also the African Union.

The information we received at the meeting in Leinster House is that there is great concern that the outcome of the election is preordained. For example, I am told voter registration is already closed, which has resulted in serious problems. People must vote in the place from which they came — mostly rural areas — so the stronghold of the MDC in urban areas is effectively being diluted, which disenfranchises the opposition. It will be too late if we wait to monitor the election; this is the time to monitor what is happening. Hopefully, the election can be put back until the summer, which I believe is being discussed.

Another issue I would like the Minister to consider, although perhaps not at this time, is divestment, considering the role played by particular UK national banks in Zimbabwe. According to the International Crisis Group report published in September, Barclays Bank is providing a lifeline to the regime, investing $50 million in 2005 and lending large sums to the government on a concessionary basis. While this is not the right time to raise this issue, if changes are not effected through the SADC initiative, we must consider such measures. We must consider whether Irish pension funds are invested in Barclays Bank and whether this supports the regime.

Sanctions have not been effective because they have been limited. I am concerned for those who have the temerity to stand up for democracy and human rights at this time. When the election has passed in March, or whenever it takes place, it is they who will be the focus of the anger of the regime and there will be little to help them at that stage.

Other issues have been suggested by AWEPA, including that we try to encourage a UN human rights mission to Zimbabwe to assist in the pre-election process. We must take note that all humanitarian aid moneys must be exchanged at the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank for local currency at unrealistic rates, which itself is of direct benefit to the Zimbabwean Government. Irish Aid needs to reflect on this issue.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to share my time with Deputies Deasy, Breen and Creighton.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I move amendment No. 1:

After the second paragraph to insert the following new paragraph:

believes however that, given the deep unhappiness of the Irish people, and human rights organisations, at the human rights record of the government of Robert Mugabe, and the failure of President Mugabe to respond positively to attempts by Ireland and others to urge a greater commitment to human rights, it would be inappropriate for the Taoiseach and any member of the Cabinet to attend the EU-Africa summit should President Mugabe also attend;

Fine Gael welcomes the motion and the opportunity to speak on the issue in Government time, and we thank those who organised it. As we want to make the motion stronger, I wish to insert the amendment, after the second paragraph, because actions speak louder than words and, to date, words have achieved very little. I also wish to include it because, as a nation, we have no agenda other than to see an end to human rights violations in Zimbabwe and a real move to an open and fair democracy.

When we call for suppression to be replaced by tolerance, and tyranny to be replaced by freedom, we do so in the knowledge that we are not a hostage to a colonial past. We have no covert economic agenda and our motivation is based purely on respect for a people that has seen economic sabotage result in dispossession, fear and hunger. Zimbabwe, once proudly known as the bread basket of Africa, a country that represented many of the hopes and aspirations of fellow African states, today has the highest inflation rate in the world at 1,700%. Unemployment is close to 80%, many survive on grain handouts, some 700,000 have lost their homes since the so-called "slum demolition drive" in 2005 and the land redistribution campaign which began in 2000 has resulted in the emigration of much-needed professionals.

Street protests organised by NGOs, trade unions and other pressure groups are violently dispersed and political opponents are beaten and arrested. Mr Mugabe divides and conquers, and divisions in the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, only strengthen his position. There are growing tensions within the ruling ZANU-PF party, however, and this, aligned to the presence of some moderates, gives some small sign of hope. Will a global vision of Mr. Mugabe arriving at the Lisbon summit this weekend and being greeted by European Heads of State assist change in his home country? I do not believe so.

The last EU-Africa summit took place in Cairo in 2000. The EU accounts for approximately 75% of sub-Saharan Africa's trade. Europe is also the biggest aid donor to Africa. However, European imports and exports to Africa are decreasing. Since the last EU-Africa summit, China and Africa have held three such events. Two-way trade was just $40 billion in 2005 and is expected to be worth $100 billion by 2010. While some will argue that the summit should deal solely with economic matters, and others desire a token salute to the wrongdoing in countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan, we believe these issues should be at the heart of the matter.

Mr. Mugabe is a master at manipulating the international audience. This autumn he was greeted with loud applause by delegates as he arrived at a meeting of the 14-nation Southern African Development Community. The impact of his attendance at the forthcoming summit in Lisbon will only be gauged in the years ahead. History to date tells me it will strengthen his position, not weaken it.

Since 2002, Europe has placed travel sanctions on President Mugabe and many of his officials. France banned Mugabe from coming to a meeting of French and African leaders earlier this year in Cannes. Now, all appears to be okay. China trades with a clear conscience and Europe gets uneasy as economic activity with Africa comes under threat. EU member states have their own motivations and commercial interests can supersede a requirement to do the right thing. Europe must decide how it deals with leaders such as Mugabe. I believe we can express our view best by having the Taoiseach and Ministers not attend the summit. When asked why, they should have the courage to outline the reasons. I hope others can join us in support of this amendment.

In his wrap-up, I would like the Minister to outline what measures the Government explored for other Zimbabwean representation at the summit. The Minister stated that 23 of the 27 EU member states will be represented at the summit at Head of State or Head of Government level. What four countries will not attend?

Deputy John Deasy

I have a particular interest in Zimbabwe because my uncle was a policeman there for 20 years and I grew up reading letters from him about the situation there. As with every other policeman in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe took his pension. I suppose my uncle was one of the lucky ones. He went to South Africa and started a business and was not one of those who have been evicted from their farms and beaten up.

This is probably why, particularly at meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs in recent years, I have raised issues concerning Zimbabwe, specifically the issue of Robert Mugabe's participation in any EU-Africa conference and Ireland's participation in such a conference. I am not trying to catch anyone out, but the Minister may remember me asking him about such participation, specifically at the Committee on European Affairs. In the context of President Mugabe's attendance, I asked him if Ireland was opposed to an EU-Africa Summit due to human rights violations in Zimbabwe, which continue to deteriorate. The Minister replied:

As I said in my statement, the summit cannot take place because of the insistence on the attendance of President Mugabe. While the EU wishes to proceed with better relations with the African continent, it must be acutely aware of the situation in Zimbabwe which, as I said, is getting worse.

When I pressed the Minister on Ireland's participation at the summit, he said: "As I have stated, the position is that the EU is reluctant to proceed with such a summit and we [meaning the Irish State] are reluctant to participate because of President Mugabe's proposed attendance". Five or ten minutes ago, the Minister said we should deal with the conference on substance as opposed to attendance. That is a hell of a difference in the Minister's position.

Earlier this year, when I questioned the then Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, he replied:

Zimbabwe has been a conflict between donor countries such as us and recipient countries, and is one of the reasons the conference has not taken place to date. We take the view that it would not be especially helpful because no right-minded person could stand over what is occurring in Zimbabwe at present, and it would send all the wrong signals. A number of Deputies have expressed concerns, as have many civil society groups, about corruption and the systematic abuse of human rights, and donors and others involved in development must draw the line somewhere.

We do not even need to argue for our amendment. One only has to read what the Minister has been saying on the issue in recent years. For the last few years, he has articulated the position that we are now proposing. The Minister has continually made the case in official condemnations, expressions of concern, speeches and statements.

As an aside, I read yesterday that Zimbabwe's chief statistician has said he can no longer work out the country's inflation rate because there are not enough goods left in the shops to count. That is interesting.

It is hard to take the EU seriously either. Despite being blacklisted by the EU and barred from travelling to Europe, Portugal and the EU have granted President Mugabe a visa for the forthcoming conference. In his speech, the Minister said it became clear that no alternative was possible, but we should have opposed the visa for President Mugabe's attendance at that conference. It is something we could and should have done. The Minister has taken the wrong decision on this issue. Based on what he has been saying about President Mugabe and this conference, it is fair to say the Minister's opposition has changed dramatically, for whatever reason.

Deputy Pat Breen

Robert Mugabe was once hailed as a symbol of the new Africa following his election as President in 1980. Soon afterwards, however, that optimism turned to fear. In May 2005 alone, some 750,000 people were evicted from their homes. Since 2003, four independent national newspapers have been shut down and the arbitrary arrest of journalists and protestors is commonplace. Power is now entirely in the hands of the government and the military. In the face of these concerns, hunger is spreading and the distribution of aid is controlled by the state's grain marketing board. The Zimbabwean peace project has recorded hundreds of incidents of people being refused subsidised food because they do not support Zanu-PF. Fear is having the desired effect — vote with your stomach or starve.

"Suffer the little children" is a phrase that is never far from one's mind in today's Zimbabwe. The long lines of children's graves in the overflowing graveyards in Bulawayo or Beit Bridge are a testament to the high mortality rate for children in that country. Nobody knows how many people are dying in Zimbabwe today, given that the costs of buying a coffin and registering a death are beyond the means of ordinary people.

The Mugabe government has tried to interfere in the distribution of international aid. The Irish contribution to this aid for 2006 amounted to over €8 million with many Irish agencies working under extraordinary conditions, battling with local government corruption to ensure that those most in need of aid will receive it.

Amnesty International has reported claims by many women of arbitrary arrest, beatings and in some cases torture in police custody. In Zimbabwe, the majority of human rights activists are women fighting to feed their children. Human rights activists, trade unionists, media workers, NGO workers, lawyers, students and the political opposition have been targeted by the Mugabe government for special attention. Human rights work is dangerous. In 2006, the director of the lawyers' human rights group, Arnold Tsunga, was prosecuted by police because he sat on the board of an independent radio station, Voice of the People.

According to the latest monthly report on political violence, produced by the Zimbabwe human rights NGO forum, during the first nine months of this year there were 776 cases of assault and 526 cases of torture, which is almost twice as many as for the same period last year. Torture is Robert Mugabe's election weapon and the international community can no longer sit by while human rights abuses are widespread in Zimbabwe.

Last weekend, the Senegalese President, Addoulaye Wade, attempted to mend fences between Mugabe and London, but Mugabe spurned the offer. Following the imposition of sanctions by the EU since 2002, pleas from this country and others have fallen on deaf ears. Mugabe has ruined his country with policies that are killing thousands of people. As my colleagues have said, the non-attendance of the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lisbon would signal our protest at events in Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I welcome this motion but urge the Government to accept Fine Gael's amendment. The EU-Africa Summit scheduled to take place in Lisbon will be the first of its kind in seven years. It offers a major opportunity for Europe not just to forge stronger and improved relations with Africa, but also to put pressure on African leaders and their governments to take action when human rights abuses occur. Since 1980, we have seen the catastrophic effects of Robert Mugabe's rule in Zimbabwe. Land has been seized and 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. Four out of five people are living below the poverty line, while one quarter of the population has fled the country.

There is an opportunity for the European Union to take a stand on the matter. This is particularly the case for Ireland, which has a proud record of humanitarian aid and peacekeeping work. There is a risk that this critical summit will be completely upstaged by the presence of Robert Mugabe. The Taoiseach should not stand shoulder to shoulder with Mugabe, thus lending him credibility and legitimacy on the world stage.

In 2002, following rigged elections in Zimbabwe, the EU imposed a visa ban on Mr. Mugabe and almost 100 senior Zimbabwean officials and government ministers. EU observers were denied an opportunity to participate in election monitoring at that time. I would like to know what has changed in the interim. Why have the visa restrictions on this despotic dictator been relaxed to allow him to attend the Lisbon Summit? Why is he being granted legitimacy by being treated as the head of a normal, democratic state?

In his speech, the Minister said the strategy to be adopted at the Lisbon Summit will place respect for human rights, freedom, equality, solidarity, justice, the rule of law and democracy at the centre of the EU-Africa partnership. I understand that European governments will sign up to those principles, but how can the Minister claim that Robert Mugabe will stand by such principles or honour any commitments made at the summit?

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I wish to share time with Deputy Howlin.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the conditions that prevail in Zimbabwe and support what I understood to be an agreed motion condemning the behaviour of the country's president, Robert Mugabe. President Mugabe should have been confronted long ago on many issues, particularly in respect of human rights. It is a very long time since he was received on a visit to Ireland. When a very young person raised the question of his treatment of the gay community in Zimbabwe, nobody offered support.

We are all in agreement on certain issues and it would be a great pity if this were not acknowledged beyond this House. We are in agreement that there have been grave violations of human rights and of the civil process in terms of the participation of and respect for the rights of the opposition in Zimbabwe. We are in agreement on the destructive economic actions of the regime, particularly on the poor. We are, I hope, in agreement that we should sustain our attempts to continue to provide aid and ensure it is delivered where it is most needed. We have a responsibility to place everything that has happened in context. I regret I cannot support the amendment because we must make a choice as to how best we can advance the case we are making on human rights, the civil process, the proper conduction of the elections and the structure of civil society.

The confrontation with President Mugabe must be moved to the top of the agenda and this requires our presence at the Africa-EU summit. If one abstains, one follows Prime Minister Gordon Brown and simply makes President Mugabe the centre of an important summit. The issues that arise in Africa are incredibly important, including the destruction of the environment, in respect of which the pastoral families are perhaps the worst affected. It is unfair on 49 of the 50 African countries to say the issues that affect them — the environment, aid, trade, debt and the international economic order — cannot be discussed. The decision on which we are divided is how best to proceed.

All the aforementioned issues are important for the entire Continent of Africa. President Mugabe should be confronted very seriously, including by his neighbours. South Africa has been entirely insufficient in respect of the pressure it has put on President Mugabe. It was very late in the day that he was first condemned, and this was by someone who was less than a full Cabinet Minister. I do not accept the argument that South Africa is a new nation on the block or that one's neighbour should be handled with kid gloves. There are issues of human rights to be considered, bearing in mind that South Africa's independence and current position are founded on the vindication of the rights of a population. The same should apply to Zimbabwe.

People will excuse me for being somewhat cynical regarding Prime Minister Gordon Brown's position. During the long history of Britain's relationship with Zimbabwe, there was a cynical breach of the Lancaster House agreements. While it is certainly true that President Mugabe's party was abusing the process for the reallocation of land, it is also true that the British Government failed in its commitments regarding what would facilitate transitions in Zimbabwe.

Anyone who has studied election fraud in different Continents has found evidence that most fraud of this kind takes place in the registration process. The Canadian Bar Association, for example, in its handbook put the figure at approximately 70%. This means election observers need to be put in place very early. One also needs to be able to confront the registration process because observing on polling day or immediately afterwards is of very limited value. If one is to make the case as to how best to confront fraud during the registration process and how best to observe the elections, one must ask whether this can be achieved through a meeting of the European Union with its African neighbours. Is this not the most positive approach?

I am anxious that there be the widest possible consensus in the House in condemning President Mugabe so as to address the needs of the poorest people in Zimbabwe, who are carrying the brunt of his oppression. I seek consensus in putting pressure on Zimbabwe's neighbours to bring about changes in the country. One can do this best by putting the issue in the context of general African issues. There is no doubt that anybody who considers the effects of climate change will note that its impact on the African Continent is overwhelmingly greater than that on other Continents. It is equally true that the rush on the cities through urbanisation and the migration problems are more serious in Africa than elsewhere. On the rush to sign economic partnership agreements, there is a real difficulty regarding the imbalance of power between the European Union and Africa.

Reference was made to China's relationship with Africa. It is very important that there be a human rights element to the development model, which in turn should govern the trade model. Aid, trade and odious debt, which is often incurred by dictators, some of whom are no longer on the Continent of Africa, form a wide context involving 50 countries with considerable issues. It would be a great pity if President Mugabe were to dislodge the general discussion in this regard. I hope we are all able to agree to condemn the economic havoc being wreaked on the lives of people in Zimbabwe, the social impact of the political regime on housing and the abuse of a people by somebody who has betrayed the post-colonial opportunities of the country. We should do so in the context of wanting to see a better, deeper and fairer relationship between the European Union and Africa. I strongly support the motion on behalf of the Labour Party but regret that I cannot support the amendment.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue concerning Africa in this House. We have few enough opportunities to do so despite the great interest of Members in issues pertaining to Africa, including that of development, and also the great interest of the Irish people in such issues. I commend Deputy Barry Andrews on his initiative in organising the very important meeting of the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA, on 20 November, which was attended by 20 Oireachtas Members. Very important first-hand accounts of what is happening in Zimbabwe were presented.

The circumstances in Zimbabwe are an unfolding tragedy and the details thereon have been outlined to the House by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The nation's anguish is noted by all the people of Ireland. Ireland has no colonial baggage and has an interest in development and therefore has particular responsibility within the European Union and among the international community to speak in a very straightforward manner on this issue.

I speak as the chairman of the Irish section of AWEPA, which has a proud and honourable tradition of supporting the liberation movement in Zimbabwe since its inception. I visited Zimbabwe in its very early days and it was then the cradle of hope. I met President Robert Mugabe and the then Speaker of the Parliament, Didymus Mutasa, and we had great hope. These figures were the models who were to show how a new democratic Africa could be developed and they helped to export the liberation struggle to the neighbouring front-line states. They were pivotal in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa. It is absolutely unacceptable that this potential has been squandered and that the regime of Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe, which is now waging war on its people, should go without answer. We therefore have a great responsibility to adopt a position in defence of the people of Zimbabwe.

I welcome the united effort of this House to take a stand. It is important our Government is represented at the EU-Africa summit to confront, without the baggage of history, the despotic leader of Zimbabwe and to state the position of the Irish people directly to him. That cannot be done through abstention. I regret the British Prime Minister, who has done so much to put Africa on the international agenda, particularly the G8 agenda, and who has driven the economic reforms to try to clear African debt, will not be there. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, is quite right in that the entire continent of Africa requires focus and we cannot avoid taking the actions needed due to the absence of an individual.

What is the methodology to be used? The traditional AWEPA way is to build consensus across European Parliaments and to have a common alliance for democracy. I hope this motion is the beginning of that process. It will be replicated in other parliaments across the European Continent and, I hope, in the European Parliament. I hope we can unite in democratic action to assist.

I mention the requirements on the neighbours of Zimbabwe to take action. The action, in particular, of the dominant nation in southern Africa, South Africa, is critically important. South Africa is not only an economic powerhouse in the region but it exerts real influence on Zimbabwe. I hope that through our diplomatic efforts, we exhort the President of South Africa to use the influence of that nation on Zimbabwe. The South Africans know of the flood of refugees crossing their border on a daily basis fleeing oppression in Zimbabwe. It is critically important they take a stand. Most of us are disappointed at the temerity of the South African approach to this issue to date. There is a notion that there is quiet diplomacy. Quiet diplomacy is often important but it must be at least robust beneath the surface and impactive.

The reception Robert Mugabe got at the SADC conference in August, at which he got a standing ovation, was mentioned. It is a pity many of the positive things that emerged from that conference in Lusaka, such as development issues, free movement of people and trade in the area, were dwarfed by the media focus on Zimbabwe simply because one individual got a standing ovation. It is depressing for those of us who have been friends of Africa for a very long time, and who hope to be friends for a lifetime, to see a despot like Mugabe being greeted in that fashion. However, that is the African way and they respect a head of state, particularly one from a nation which has been so pivotal in building the liberation movement across southern Africa.

It is time for the nations of Africa to listen to their friends. The Irish do not have baggage in this regard. It is important to state that because it is simple for the Mugabe regime to dismiss British or French criticism as a sort of post-colonial continuing repression. We have none of that baggage and, therefore, we have unique authority to demand and support change in the democratic structures in Zimbabwe.

The chair of the eminent advisory board of AWEPA, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has been very courageous in his denunciation of what has happened in Zimbabwe. I hope his lead will be followed by many other eminent South Africans and that we listen to the voice of people such as the Zimbabwean human rights lawyer, Otto Saki, who spoke to Members of this House at a meeting a fortnight ago and urged us to take action. Let us be united in this House and clear in our message that we want democratic changes in Zimbabwe, that we demand the rule of law and that the principles of democracy and human rights are applicable to all nations and peoples and that Ireland will be to the vanguard in ensuring that comes about.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The words from the Stevie Wonder song, Peace Has Come to Zimbabwe, are ringing through my head and are mocking us all. They are also spurring us on to action to try to bring peace again to Zimbabwe and rebuild a country where life expectancy has almost halved over the past ten years.

I applaud Deputy Howlin's placing of the Zimbabwe issue in the context of Ireland's past. Ireland is almost uniquely positioned in the European context as a country which has known colonisation and oppression and which, I hope, can lead by example in showing Zimbabwe the way forward. My colleague, Patricia McKenna, has discussed how the Irish experience of the Land Commission could show Zimbabwe a way to reform land ownership in a democratic way which can allow all the people to share in the wealth, opportunity and future of their country.

I welcome the mediation efforts of Thabo Mbeki to promote political dialogue between the Zimbabwean Government and the opposition parties. It is disingenuous of Deputy Billy Timmins to suggest that non-attendance would show Ireland was more interested in human rights violations in Zimbabwe than Europe's trade with Africa. It is important to be there because this summit does not take place every year but only every seven years. Given Ireland's increasing leadership role in development aid to sub-Saharan Africa and the huge pressure of climate change which is dramatically reducing crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa, there is a great onus to act and engage in dialogue now and to show a way forward rather than simply walk away from an event which does not happen on a regular basis.

It is hugely important to show how we can move forward because Zimbabwe is plagued by street marches, which are violently dispersed by the regime, and by leaders being routinely arrested. I refer the case of Fergus Blackie, a retired Zimbabwean justice, who was hauled from his home before dawn, held in jail for three nights and paraded through the bumpy streets of Harare in handcuffs in an open top Land Rover. This is the message Mugabe is sending to the western world and we must show that we will engage in dialogue but that through that dialogue, we will show the best way forward.

It is important to talk, to be there and to show leadership and how Ireland's aid, which was €17 million over the past couple of years, can make a huge difference. We should call on the Zimbabwean Government to comply with the SADC guidelines on free and fair elections. We should publicly welcome the mediation efforts of Thabo Mbeki to promote political dialogue between the government and the opposition parties.

Ireland has been through the trauma of being colonised and the process of nation building. It was not an easy process and there were dark days in the 1920s with landowners being burned out and pushed out of the country but there was also hope, leadership and a democratic, peaceful and egalitarian process which gave us an agrarian optimism and future which led us through the dark days of the 1930s and 1940s. It is possible to reform land ownership without deporting people. It is possible to show that a democratic future is possible. We all look forward to a day when democracy is restored to Zimbabwe and hope is brought to all of the Zimbabwean people.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

I am delighted that we are having this debate. This country has had a long association with Zimbabwe through our missionaries and others. We still have 3,000 of our own people in Zimbabwe. It is over 20 years since I, as a Minister for State for Foreign Affairs, visited Zimbabwe. The hope and expectation that was there was palpable. It was not too long after independence. Agriculture was very strong there and the country had the potential to be the bread basket of Africa. There was all that hope then.

What we have now is a country that has been brought to its knees by Mugabe and his cronies. It is now one of the poorest countries in the world. The details have been given. Life expectancy is down to 37 years and falling, while the unemployment rate is 85%. The country also has the highest rate of inflation in the world. It is giving a new definition to hyperinflation. The official figure runs into thousands. In June, the US Ambassador estimated that it would be 1.5 million per cent by the end of this year. One stops counting when one reaches that far.

In contrast, in Burma, which is another country on which we have focused recently, the rate is only 40%. Zimbabwe also has the world's highest rate of AIDS infection. Let us look at it. It is not a coincidence. Zimbabwe has none of the norms of democratic governance. The judiciary is totally repressed. Any of its members who show any independence are dealt with by the regime. The rule of law does not apply. There is even racial discrimination there. There is no independent media. Human rights are blatantly violated. The country is now marked by political violation and intimidation. The independent newspapers were bombed and closed down, while members of the judiciary were threatened and arrested if they showed any indication of having an independent line. Even when the judiciary issued rulings in favour of the opposition MDC, they were ignored by the police.

We are talking about a country that has become the sewer of the world as far as democracy is concerned. Why is this the case? It is because it has been and is ruled by a murderous megalomaniac. Mugabe is a murderous megalomaniac. It is as simple as that. He and his cronies have brought that country to its knees.

When I was a Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs about 20 years ago, I had the doubtful privilege of having to accompany Mugabe around when he visited this country. He told me of his views on the benefits of one-party rule, which he thought would be of great benefit to this country. I did my best to persuade him otherwise. Obviously, I was not very successful. He and his cronies have been responsible for the state of his country.

Efforts have been made to deal with it. I am glad South Africa, which is the main nation in southern Africa, has been making some efforts but let us be blunt. The results have been very poor. There is too much handling of Mugabe with kid gloves. Of course, the lead should be taken by his African neighbours, especially by the biggest power in Africa. I would prefer a much more focused effort on the part of his African neighbours, in particular South Africa.

Quite rightly, there is a huge consensus here. We want to highlight this issue and must raise it at every level when we can. We want to raise it here and throughout the EU. We want to do what we can, which is little enough. We support the EU sanctions, but what are they? There is a ban on arms sales, which is being enforced. Other countries, however, have filled the gap. There are visa restrictions on the top 130 members of the Mugabe regime. That is it, yet he is invited to the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon. My stomach turns at the notion of that man being invited to Europe and the fact that the visa restriction was lifted. What sort of signal are we sending to the other 129 members of the regime when the boss man is brought to Lisbon? It was a bad mistake to invite him to the Lisbon summit and we, or, more correctly, the EU, should have stood firm on it. The wrong signal is going out. One can imagine how that will be relayed back throughout Africa and specifically in Zimbabwe. The notion of that murderous megalomaniac being recognised in Lisbon turns my stomach.

That brings me to the legitimate question of what we do about it. Deputy Timmins asked whether we should be represented at the Lisbon summit. Other countries, including our neighbour, Great Britain, have decided that they will not go. It is a very legitimate point that, to further express our frustration, we should not go either.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

I wish to share a small portion of my time with Deputy Michael Kennedy, with the permission of the House.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Ardagh)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to what I consider to be a very important debate. The Minister and his Minister for State, Deputy Michael Kitt, should understand the depth of feeling that exists across the floor as far as this issue is concerned. I am sorry if we are going to divide on the matter and I hope we do not do so.

In fairness to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, he makes a reasonable point. However, there is another reasonable point to be made, which I have heard made in other debates and in coverage in the UK last week. It is a question of confrontation or no confrontation. I am sure when President Mugabe goes to the conference, he will understand the depth of feeling of different leaders. One must make up one's mind as far as that is concerned.

My colleague, Deputy Howlin, who is one of the vice-presidents of the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA, of whose council I am delighted to be a member, has already made reference to Deputy Barry Andrews's initiative in this regard. It was a very important meeting. I made the point at different AWEPA meetings that we are all busy people who are concentrating on our own constituencies. It is right that we find the time to concentrate our energies on what is going on in the African Continent. Over the years, AWEPA, even before I became involved, has done that very skilfully. The particular meeting we attended under the chairmanship of Deputy Barry Andrews, whose efforts in that regard I applaud, is a good example of what we can all do. I hope we can also use this debate to promote the work of AWEPA in the House. The Irish section of it would certainly welcome even more participation. The meeting held a couple of weeks ago was very impressive and we will have more of those meetings. It was good to hear the Ambassador of South Africa being confronted, if one likes, by a number of colleagues, including myself, regarding issues of concern to colleagues here tonight. I hope progress would be made in that regard.

I have had an interest in this particular subject for a long time. Today, I tried to find correspondence I exchanged with the then Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith, in 1966. The reason I remembered it is because I received the response from what I considered at the time to be the propaganda department. I think it sent me about 20 pages justifying what was going on. I am not going to write to Robert Mugabe but I am sure that if I did, I would receive the same drivel.

It is very important that we stand up and speak out on these particular issues. I have visited Zimbabwe twice. I feel the people there, particularly parliamentarians, would want us to support them and I hope this particular motion goes some way towards that this evening. I will now hand over to my colleague, Deputy Michael Kennedy.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

I congratulate Deputy Barry Andrews for giving us the opportunity to speak today. The question is whether our Taoiseach should go to the Lisbon summit. It is my belief that he should because it will give him a firm hand, along with our European partners, to ensure that human rights abuses are raised and discussed with Zimbabwean officials.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Are we talking about Lisbon?

Deputy Michael Kennedy

This can only be done if we show a firm commitment by attending. Abstaining will achieve nothing.

The fact is that 52 other African countries are attending and it is an opportunity for us to show solidarity with them. I certainly believe that this is more than just an informal little chat. It is about Ireland as a member of the EU joining with its EU partners in ensuring that we enter into dialogue with the other African countries and that we give a clear message to Mr. Mugabe that what is happening in that country is not acceptable to us in Ireland. A boycott of this event by Ireland will not benefit anyone and would certainly not benefit the other African countries. The summit will be historic because an EU-African strategy will be developed as a result. It is unfortunate that the President Mugabe issue has eclipsed the objective of the summit. Fine Gael is wrong in suggesting we should not be in attendance. Ireland is not just a tiny country in the corner of Europe — it is a member of the major European body. We have the same collective responsibility as any of the 26 member states who will attend. Ireland has a role to play and we have a clear message for Zimbabwe.

We can be proactive on trade issues. China is making inroads into trade with Zimbabwe. It is totally unscrupulous in how it deals with trade. Ireland has the opportunity to continue the trade Europe does but also to attach conditions. If we did not attend, President Mugabe would relish the thought that he had defeated the Europeans. He would regard our not turning up as a moral victory. We cannot allow him to do that. We must press home the fact that we reject the humanitarian issues, and that he starves half his people and exports badly needed food. By sending the Taoiseach, along with Prime Ministers of other European countries, we send a clear message, which is right.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dermot Ahern)

I thank speakers for contributing to the debate. I was approached by Deputy Barry Andrews last week, who suggested that, as a result of the AWEPA meeting, a sizeable proportion of the House wished to pass an all-party motion and I readily agreed.

I am disappointed that the House will divide on this matter. Deputy Higgins stated that we agree on the issues involved in the crisis in Zimbabwe and must decide how to proceed. Ireland has been consistent on this matter and has made its position clear publicly and at relevant EU meetings. Ireland made clear its reluctance to hold a summit with Robert Mugabe in attendance. We have used every opportunity to insist he would not be present at the summit. Deputy O'Keeffe exhorted the EU to stand firm. This summit would not take place if we adopted a holding firm position on this. It would mean that the entire effort to get the rest of the countries in the African continent in a wholesome way would have fallen. The overall context of the summit was to deal with issues of governance and capacity building of African Union member states on an equal basis, not just dealing with Africa and the EU in the positions of recipient and donor as has been the case for far too long. This is particularly the case in respect of climate change, as Deputy Cuffe stated, and issues such as human rights and humanitarian assistance. From a national and EU point of view we believed that attendance is a far better option than staying away and claiming a pyrrhic victory which would, in effect, mean shouting from afar.

A Member asked how many member states would not be represented at head of state level. The countries are the UK, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. It is illustrative to point out that none of the Irish NGOs of which I am aware have called for us to boycott this meeting.

Deputy Billy Timmins

It is not a boycott. The amendment refers to the Taoiseach or a Cabinet Minister.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

In effect, it is a boycott. Trócaire's recent statement makes clear it regards this as an excellent opportunity to highlight the serious nature of the crisis in Zimbabwe. Efforts were made behind the scenes to ascertain if representation could be made at some level to preserve the overall context of the conference. We are where we are in respect of the attendance of Mr. Mugabe. If we are to learn anything from our experience of difficulties on this island, it is not to turn our backs and walk away but to engage with those people. By engaging with those with whom we disagree, we can confront those people. There is no better opportunity to confront Mr. Mugabe on human rights and all difficulties his regime metes out to his people than attending.

Deputy John Deasy

We cannot engage with him.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

This is true not just from a national point of view but the EU point of view. This will give a strong message to Mr. Mugabe and his regime and particularly the fellow member states that we wish to have an excellent relationship dealing with common issues on an equal basis but we also wish to highlight issues of human rights. On the basis that it is not an issue on which the House should divide, I appeal to the Members opposite. All of the other parties have indicated that it is best that the Taoiseach and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michéal Kitt, attend the conference. I appeal to Fine Gael. I do not know who is pulling the strings in Fine Gael since the last election. I do not make this as a political point — this House should not divide on this issue.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 92.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Bannon, James.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Breen, Pat.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Ulick.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Carey, Joe.
• Clune, Deirdre.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coonan, Noel J.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Creed, Michael.
• Creighton, Lucinda.
• D’Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• English, Damien.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McEntee, Shane.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Neville, Dan.
• O’Dowd, Fergus.
• O’Keeffe, Jim.
• O’Mahony, John.
• Reilly, James.
• Ring, Michael.
• Stanton, David.
• Timmins, Billy.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, Barry.
• Andrews, Chris.
• Ardagh, Seán.
• Behan, Joe.
• Blaney, Niall.
• Brady, Áine.
• Brady, Cyprian.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Browne, John.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Carey, Pat.
• Collins, Niall.
• Conlon, Margaret.
• Connick, Seán.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cuffe, Ciarán.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Curran, John.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Devins, Jimmy.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Fleming, Seán.
• Flynn, Beverley.
• Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Hanafin, Mary.
• Harney, Mary.
• Healy-Rae, Jackie.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hoctor, Máire.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kelly, Peter.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kennedy, Michael.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Mansergh, Martin.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McManus, Liz.
• Morgan, Arthur.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• O’Brien, Darragh.
• O’Connor, Charlie.
• O’Dea, Willie.
• O’Flynn, Noel.
• O’Keeffe, Edward.
• O’Rourke, Mary.
• O’Shea, Brian.
• O’Sullivan, Christy.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Power, Peter.
• Power, Seán.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Sherlock, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Upton, Mary.
• Wall, Jack.
• Wallace, Mary.
• White, Mary Alexandra.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and David Stanton; Níl, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put and agreed to.