of Zimbabwe is that the British Government should continue to have dialogue

with the Zimbabwe Government and apply what pressure we can through

international consensus. Since losing the referendum, President Mugabe has

sought to divert attention from the growing internal opposition by trying to

present Britain as his opponent in the coming election which, of course, we

are not. The international community, including the United States, the

Commonwealth and African states, share our concerns at the deteriorating

situation. Only last Monday, Britain's policy was unanimously backed by our

European Union partners. On Sunday, both the Foreign Secretary and I spoke

to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and he told us that his Foreign Minister

Lamido was due to arrive in Harare today. We are all united in urging the

Government of Zimbabwe to end the lawlessness and stop the violence, much of

it officially incited. The killing over the weekend of a white farmer and the

savage beating of his colleagues was tragic. So, of course, is the death

within the last few hours of another farmer. Equally disturbing, and I will

just focus briefly on this, was the killing, apparently by Government

supporters, of two Opposition members driving in an Opposition vehicle. Eight

members of the Opposition have been killed in the last two weeks and more than

100 hospitalised. Opposition leaders are now in fear of assassination, so it

is absolutely vital that we continue to seek opportunities for constructive

dialogue. We cannot have dialogue when the hand of friendship is rejected.

Therefore, we welcome President Mugabe's agreement to send a delegation to

London, probably next week. We agree with the people of Zimbabwe that

elections should be held within the time allowed by the constitution and that

they should be free and fair. We have already secured agreement from our EU

partners to offer international monitors and we are discussing the same issue

with the Commonwealth. We hope that President Mugabe will accept this offer.

I am pleased that yesterday the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament was

reported as saying that he unreservedly welcomed foreign observers. Britain

stands ready with our international partners to support a team of election

monitors, just we have done during the past year, for example, in South Africa

and Mozambique. The very future of Zimbabwe depends on the elections being

free and fair. Britain with not interfere in these elections. The destiny

of Zimbabwe lies in the hands of its own people. I hope that Zimbabwe will

be transformed from its present serious condition into a powerhouse in Africa

for economic prosperity, good governance, and respect for human rights. If

new policies emerge to achieve that, Zimbabwe will find in Britain not just

an old friend but a new partner.

2. I am obliged. Minister, last week when President Mugabe was in

Cuba, Vice Present Msika urged the squatters to end their occupation. Now you

are saying that the Speaker is prepared to welcome international observers to

the elections. Has there been anything positive from President Mugabe?

(Mr Hain) In respect of international observers?

3. In respect of international observers, in respect of urging

restraint on the squatters, and generally seeking to help to ease the

situation.

(Mr Hain) President Mugabe has apparently told foreign African leaders,

colleagues of his, that he might be willing to accept Commonwealth observers.

and constructive talks. However, there has been a problem throughout these

past weeks about the question of the squatting. On the other hand, the Vice

President has been very clear.

4. The Vice President does not rule, with respect.

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

5. Has there been anything at all positive or constructive, in

attempting to lessen the crisis, from President Mugabe?

(Mr Hain) The meeting yesterday with the farmers appeared to reduce the

tension, certainly the farmers' leaders thought so. I cannot, however, say

that President Mugabe has displayed the leadership that he ought to have done

to ensure that the law was enforced, to ensure that the violence was ended.

Indeed, many of his statements have appeared to incite an escalation of the

problem in contrast to the Vice President who, in a conversation with me over

the phone and in public statements, has said that the law should be upheld.

Of course, the President is now in a position, as are many of his Ministers,

of defying not just the rule of law in a general sense but a decision of his

own high court, which is a very serious matter.

6. He does this, notwithstanding there is a real danger of a crisis

of confidence. 40 per cent of the export earnings of Zimbabwe come from

commercial farmers, mainly tobacco. If they default on their bank loans,

there will be a further financial crisis. This could affect, in terms of

morale, not only inward investment but it could lead to an exodus of trained

people both in Zimbabwe and, presumably, the infection could spread to

neighbouring countries too.

(Mr Hain) I think you are absolutely right. This is an issue not just

of serious crisis for Zimbabwe but for the entire region. For example, the

Malawians tell us that many, many (perhaps millions) of their citizens are

actually working on the farms as farm labourers. If we saw the pictures on

television yesterday of the white farmers' farmsteads abandoned now with its

farm workers' homes burnt, its tobacco crops rotting under canvass or some

other protection, Zimbabwe's whole economy depends critically on the

successful agricultural sector and its foreign exchange reserves, which are

virtually empty, on successful exports of tobacco and agricultural produce.

So this is a situation which is not only creating internal instability but a

real crisis of huge economic proportions for the whole country and the region.

7. Given the further tragedy of the death of a farmer, and the

possible effects on investment in South Africa itself, are you surprised that

the political leadership in South Africa has not stirred itself more?

(Mr Hain) President Mbeki did visit Harare some weeks ago and he plans

another visit in the near future. I know from my own discussions with

leadership at the top level of the neighbouring countries - and indeed with

President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and the discussion that the Foreign Secretary

had with the Secretary General of the Organisation of African Unity - that all

African countries share our concerns completely and are seeking to bring what

influence they can.

Sir Peter Emery

8. There is no reason why you should know, but I was one of the

Members of the House that was asked by the Prime Minister to monitor the first

elections, the last election in South Rhodesia and the election by which

President Mugabe came to power and Zimbabwe was, in fact, created. I saw the

discipline of those people who are the remains of the war veterans. Can you

really believe that they are taking this action without the approval of the

President?

(Mr Hain) No.

9. So that means to say that we must realise that Mugabe is in the

dock, accused of really taking no action to stop this, and having been willing

to allow it to happen?

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, I think it is quite clear that one of the reasons

for the illegal farm invasions in the first place, were acts of orchestration

from the very highest level of the ruling Zanu/PF party. That could not have

happened, given the way Zimbabwe is governed, without the President's

authority. Indeed, one of the regrettable features about this deteriorating

situation is that he, at least until yesterday, when he met the leaders of the

Commercial Farmers Union, has not been prepared to use his full authority as

President to stop this lawlessness and stop the violence which has now

resulted in deaths.

10. What steps have you taken to see what action the United Nations

could take, or whether Kofi Annan could use his influence on the President?

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, what we have done from the beginning, in

conversations that I have had personally with Zimbabwe Ministers, and that the

Foreign Secretary had with President Mugabe had in Cairo only two weeks ago,

in the conversations we have had with the Commonwealth, with the Organisation

of African Union neighbouring African states, and discussions which have

occurred at the United Nations in New York through our permanent

representative, what we have sought to do consistently is to say that this is

not in the interests of Zimbabwean people. President Mugabe has sought to

present the current situation as if Britain is the enemy. Britain is a long

standing friend. He must not be allowed to present it in that fashion. It

is very important that all the statements that Members of Parliament make, if

I may say so, bear that in mind. That we will not fall into his trap of

seeking to present this crisis as if it is one of Zimbabwe versus Britain,

when all of our international colleagues share our concerns.

11. I understand that. But if we are really friends of the

Zimbabwean people, we must have this brought to an end as soon as possible.

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

12. Because of the confrontation that Mugabe is trying to create

between himself and Britain generally, ought we not to be trying, as Lord

Carrington suggested, to help other Africans - I use Kofi Annan as a very good

example - to argue the case of the law and the case of the people of Zimbabwe

rather than Britain alone. We should be using every force outside ourselves

to try to bring influence, and particularly Africans, to bring influence on

him.

(Mr Hain) That is precisely why I very much welcome the visits to

Zimbabwe by the Nigerian Foreign Minister; a visit which followed

conversations that the Foreign Secretary and I had with President Obasanjo on

Sunday; in turn, following President Obasanjo's convening of the meeting

between the Foreign Secretary and President Mugabe. I agree with you

completely. That is precisely what we have been seeking to do. In the end

this is a problem, which is an African problem, needing an African solution.

13. Kofi Annan has been used to try and bring some influence?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to go into what might or might not be happening

at the United Nations. I think the focus should be on African countries at

the present time.

Mr Rowlands

14. I too was an observer at the 1980 independence. We knew Mr

Mugabe very well in the 1970s and it is very sad to see the arrogance of

someone who has been in power for too long. Is it a one man Government? Is

there any other body in the Government who can stand up and speak to Mr Mugabe

and say, "Look, this is what you are doing to your country"?

(Mr Hain) Mr Rowlands, I appreciate your old expert knowledge and

involvement in this matter, but I do not want us to personalise this crisis

because that is exactly what has allowed the President to inflame an already

serious situation. So to answer your question directly, President Mugabe is

in charge of the country, quite clearly. There are, however, alternative

voices, both within his Government and within his own party, let alone within

the Opposition, which is now a stronger opposition than Zimbabwe has had since

independence.

15. When you said you did not want to personalise it, some of your

own language has been pretty strong stuff. "Intemperate", "irrational",

"lifting two fingers to the courts". These are the phrases you have used in

denunciation, not just of the Government but President Mugabe himself.

Therefore, I do not quite understand your response to my first question. You,

yourself, have lead the denunciation of his behaviour.

(Mr Hain) I have been very robust, as has the Foreign Secretary. You

were quite right to quote those. I think it is important that we were robust

from the beginning. It is important that no double standards are shown when

black African leaders abuse human rights, provoke policies which cause

violence and now deaths. That is no different from the old dictatorship of

Ian Smith and the racist repression which he was responsible for. It is

important that we do not have double standards, which is why I have been

robust. But it is very important now that instead of knee-jerk gestures,

which I do not suggest you are asking for but have come from some Opposition

figures outside this Committee, instead we have measured messages. This is

16. That implies that influence can help and assist. How is our

access to the President these days? For example, has our High Commissioner

got direct access to the President? Has he managed to meet him in the last

three or four weeks as this crisis unfolded? Is there a personal relationship

between the High Commissioner and the President or is that fractured too?

(Mr Hain) He has not been able to meet the President in recent times.

I, myself, met the President on 29 October in London. Unfortunately, the

following day there was a demonstration by the Gay Rights Campaign, by Peter

Tatchell, which caused a further series of outbursts from the President. I

met him again in January in the margins of the New York Security Council. I

have had regular conversations with Zimbabwe Ministers but I cannot say, other

than the meeting which was held under the chairmanship of President Obasanjo

in Cairo, that we can claim a strong personal basis for dialogue with the

President. That is regrettable.

17. May I seek clarification as to what emerged from the Cairo

meeting because I heard slightly conflicting sounds coming from it. The

build-up to that meeting was one of forthright denunciation of the kind I

described. You and the Foreign Secretary made those denunciations. Then

following that meeting there seemed to be an almost act of reconciliation

between Mr Mugabe and ourselves, that we would do something further on land

reform, as long as he exercised his influence. In those meetings was there

a clear understanding of what President Mugabe was going to do to try to calm

the situation, and how we would then respond to that calming or not? It seems

that since the Cairo meeting things have got worse, not better.

(Mr Hain) The importance of the Cairo meeting was to try to establish

a basis for dialogue. I cannot claim that the results showed that it was a

roaring success. Nor did we anticipate that the situation would necessarily

change dramatically as a result of one albeit lengthy conversation. But the

concrete things that came out of that were President Mugabe's acceptance of

an invitation from the Foreign Secretary to send a senior delegation to visit

us in London and to discuss land reform, the economic crisis, the

deteriorating lawlessness, the violence, and all these other problems which

are besetting the country, so that was one concrete outcome. There was a

discussion. There was a dialogue. That is to be welcomed. I should also

just say very briefly that when I have had private discussions with our

colleagues in the United States, with my opposite numbers in Europe, with

senior members of African Governments, they too have had difficulty in

establishing a constructive dialogue with President Mugabe. This has been the

heart of the problem in many respects.

Dr Starkey

18. One of the big issues behind all of this is land reform. May I

ask a few questions about land reform in Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary

issued a statement in April saying that: "Britain is prepared to help fund a

land reform programme which is within the rule of law ... [and] to support

reform, provided it genuinely addresses the problem of rural poverty." What

progress has there actually been so far in Zimbabwe since independence on real

land reform, that is, land reform which addresses the problem of rural

poverty?

(Mr Hain) In the beginning, in the 1980s, there was some progress on

that. During the period the previous Government supplied some œ44 million

worth of funding to support it. However, it became increasingly obvious that

the land reform programme was not achieving its objective which, as you quite

rightly stress, was to tackle rural poverty and redress the historic imbalance

think we should all acknowledge that there is and was that legacy. But the

land reform programme that was being pursued by that Government was not really

addressing these matters, so we withdraw our support for it.

19. What date would that be? That you withdrew support? Roughly.

(Mr Hain) From recollection, round about 1988. Of course, it is a

matter, for which the Secretary of State for International Development is

responsible. I will happily answer in general terms. I would like to add one

or two points. She could, no doubt, supply you with any more detailed

evidence in writing if you needed it. There was then a land conference called

in 1988 to try and address this matter - donor countries and the Zimbabwe

Government and non-governmental organisations - where it was clear it was

going off the rails. Unfortunately, in the last two years, as the programme

has been progressed - without British support, I might add, because we could

not support it - around half the properties dispersed have gone to friends of

the Government; some places to senior officials, retired officials. Very

little of it, if any, is farmed; so the problems of rural poverty have not

been addressed. The problems of landless citizens have not been addressed by

that land distribution. In addition, the country has lost a much needed

source of efficient farming production.

Chairman

20. And foreign exchange.

(Mr Hain) Yes. As I said earlier on - I cannot stress this too highly

- Zimbabwe has very, very serious economic problems at the present time with

interest rates sky high. It is around 79 per cent. With inflation at 60 per

cent, domestic debts at a third of GDP, unemployment at 50 per cent, and only

a day or two of foreign exchange reserves left; and huge debts owed to the

outside world, especially countries in the region, which relates back to your

first question, which is especially worrying, Mozambique and South Africa:

it is this policy, which is being pursued, that is incomprehensible. It does

not address the problems of rural poverty. It does not support the need for

efficient farm production. It is resulting in violence and lawlessness and

now killings. It is an absolutely catastrophic policy.

21. The land reform programme and the agreement with the British

Government on the funding of land by acquisition, was presumably part of the

Lancaster House Agreement. Were those commitments by the British Government,

made at the Lancaster House Agreement, fully discharged? And what about the

commitments made by the Zimbabwe Government? Were they fully discharged?

(Mr Hain) As Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary at the time,

recently confirmed in the media, the claims that President Mugabe has made

effectively about the willingness to compensate on the basis he is now wanting

- seizing land and then compensating, passing the bill to Britain - there was

22. So, in your view, where does the blame lie for the fact that the

land reform process has not delivered what it was supposed to deliver, which

is the alleviation of rural poverty?

(Mr Hain) I think the blame lies clearly with the Government, which has

been in power for the last 20 years, headed by its current President. It is

interesting to contrast the situation with neighbouring African countries,

(South Africa included), where a similar problem of imbalance in the

distribution of land between what were the ruling whites and now the majority

of the country having a democratic say in running it, a similar imbalance

existed but those countries have not addressed it in this inflammatory and

catastrophic fashion. They have gone about it progressively with

international support. We have always said - and I repeat it today and

confirm - that Britain stands ready, in a measured way, to support a genuine

land reform programme, including some funding, if it actually addressed rural

poverty; if it resulted in farms which were going to be in production; and if

it was not handed out to various Government cronies; then we would be able to

help. It is significant that the Americans, who have been providing the

funding, withdraw their funding only a week ago because they could no longer

support this process.

23. In the light of past experience, is it realistic to suppose that

either ourselves or the Americans will be able to come to an agreement with

the current Zimbabwe Government, where we can fund genuine land reform and be

confident they would carry it out?

(Mr Hain) We can continue to try, as we will do when the delegation

comes, as has been said from Harare it will do, possibly next week. We will

continue to try. It is quite possible that whoever rules the country after

the coming elections - and that is a decision for the Zimbabwean people and

not for us - will have to adopt new policies in order to save the country and

in order to gain the international communities' confidence, both in the region

and through donor nations, such as Britain, and also through the International

Monetary Fund and World Bank, which will want to provide financial assistance

but have been prevented from doing so by the Zimbabwean Government's

unwillingness to reform economic policies.

Sir John Stanley

24. Minister, you said just a moment ago that Britain stands ready

to make British taxpayers' money available for land reform. When you say

the events of recent weeks and the last few days in particular, the British

Government's offer of British taxpayers' money for land reform is still on the

table there today for Mr Mugabe? Is that the position?

(Mr Hain) No. I confirm that we will support a programme of land

reform which is transparent, as I have said, cost effective, and contributes

to poverty reduction. But we cannot support any Government sponsored

programme while land invasions continue, especially since, as I said, half the

land has been recently distributed to Government supporters; while the

violence has been effectively either condoned or officially incited; and while

the squatting is being pursued in defiance of the court without Government

action or police action to stop it. We cannot offer support for land reform.

There has to be complete change of policy.

25. You are saying then that the offer that the Foreign Secretary

made at Cairo has now been withdrawn for the time being?

(Mr Hain) No. I am saying that if this lawlessness stops, if the

Zimbabwean Government finds itself ready to discuss genuine land reform, then

we will do so. We will explore with the delegation, when it meets the Foreign

Secretary, whether there is going to be a change of policy.

26. Minister, the offer of British taxpayers' money, made by the

Foreign Secretary, is either on the table or it has been withdrawn. It must

be one or the other. As I understood you to say, it has been withdrawn, but

you are now saying it is on offer. Could you clarify which it is, please.

(Mr Hain) I think I made it absolutely clear. If there is a change of

policy, then we will have discussions about whether we can support it. It is

not on offer whilst the present Zimbabwean Government pursues the policy that

it is doing. May I say in respect of taxpayers' money, of course œ44 million

of taxpayers' money was paid by the last Conservative Government in the 1980s,

so this is not a matter between parties.

27. So, as of today, the offer has been withdrawn?

(Mr Hain) As of today, we stand ready to discuss it if the policy

changes. We have not made an offer where we have said we will hand over the

money. We have made an offer and we will have serious discussions and

consultations about how we could support it. We have not simply said, "There

is a pot of money available." We will hand it over if conditions change. The

Secretary of State for International Development and her officials, it is a

matter for her ultimately, and she will have to be absolutely assured that

this limited finance was going to be directed at helping the rural landless

poor, not diverted in the way that it has been.

28. I do not understand, Minister, your difficulty in acknowledging

that the offer has been withdrawn. You made it quite clear that the

conditions attached to your offer do not apply. That the present Government

in Zimbabwe is not complying with the rule of law. That the invasions of

white farmland are continuing. In those circumstances the offer is not

available. So I do not understand your difficulty in making it clear that the

British Government, like the American Government at this time, has withdrawn

its offer.

(Mr Hain) Unlike the American Government, we were not funding it, that

is the point. If it helps you, Sir John, I am quite happy to say that we will

not fund any land reform, to the extent that any offer has been made, because

all we have offered to do is to discuss it. Those discussions cannot occur

unless the policy changes. We want to have a dialogue about how to change it.

29. So it is not on offer at the present time?

(Mr Hain) No.

30. Thank you. What sum of money was discussed between the Foreign

Secretary and Mr Mugabe in terms of the scale of the British Government's

funding?

31. No sums at all?

(Mr Hain) No. Just to go back to your earlier point, this was because

President Mugabe showed no willingness to change his policy on squatting and

the deteriorating lawlessness on land invasions. Therefore, we could not have

a discussion about it. That is why we invited the delegation over to explore

what might be possible.

32. I am not trying to drive any wedges between you and the Foreign

of land reform which is transparent, cost effective and contributes to poverty

accept the Foreign Secretary has also highlighted the need to contribute

towards poverty reduction. But within the House on April 11, in answer to the

Honourable Member for Burnley, Mr Peter Pike, the Foreign Secretary said: "We

remain willing to help further but it must be a programme first that involves

Government's position is that land reform will be funded only in so far as it

dependent on wholly voluntary transactions.

point I was making in this statement is that it has to be cost effective from

the point of view of the British taxpayer. That is what has to be cost

effective.

33. Can you elaborate on that. What do you understand to be cost

(Mr Hain) Because it has to be on that basis - and I am happy both to

agree with you and agree with the Foreign Secretary - but what we are not

willing to do is hand over the money in a way that President Mugabe is

demanding and then have the Government of Zimbabwe deal with it as it wishes.

34. Can you give us your thinking as to how you would ensure that the

British taxpayers' money handed over in these circumstances was used in the

way that the present British Government wanted, and on the basis of the

valuation criteria that the Foreign Secretary stated in the House. How would

you achieve that?

(Mr Hain) That would be for the discussions that need to occur and

which so far we have not been able to engage in because of this policy of

illegal squatting, which I do not want to go over again, and because there

have been no signs that President Mugabe as yet, although the delegation might

have a different outcome next week, has been willing to depart from his policy

of effectively saying, "We are seizing the land, give us the money." We are

not willing to even discuss a land reform programme on that basis.

Dr Godman

35. Following on from Sir John's questions on land reform, may I say

I am in agreement with what you say about supporting a programme of land

reduction. We all condemn the savage killings of Opposition politicians,

farmers, and farm workers. Obviously our sympathies go to their families.

Just a couple of questions on statistics. The 4,400 white farmers. Am I

right in saying that they own over 30 per cent of the best arable land and

times is that the illegal squatting has been resisted as much by the black

farm workers as by the farmers themselves because the workers see their own

jobs as being in jeopardy. When the television pictures overnight showed

their own homes burnt down, in other words, Zimbabwean citizens burning down

their own neighbours' homes, the senselessness of this action was revealed.

36. In your opening statement I think you said that there are

millions of Malawians employed on these white-owned farms. Was that a slip

of the tongue? Was it thousands?

(Mr Hain) No: The Malawian Government has told us that there may be

millions. Because the borders are so porous, it is difficult for us to

confirm that figure. That is why I am very careful to say the Malawian

Government. It is sufficiently concerned to have said that it is very worried

about the impact of unemployed workers coming back into their own quarters.

They do not have jobs for them.

37. So you accept that there are millions of immigrant workers on

these 4,400 farms?

(Mr Hain) I accept that this is what the Malawian Government have told

us. It may be that there are also lots of Mozambiquans.

38. You would agree that if we are talking about land reform - and

the kind of land reform that you want to see and we want to see, equitable and

corruption free land reform - that this will inevitably lead to many of these

white farmers being removed?

(Mr Hain) That has to be done by agreement.

39. I am saying, if you are going to have land reform, then by land

reform we are inevitably discussing the redistribution of the ownership or the

tenure of the land. That means many of these farmers will have to go.

(Mr Hain) Many of them will obviously sell their properties if it is

done in a proper fashion. What is also important is that there are whole

farming areas which are undeveloped at the moment, being not in production.

40. Is not most of the communal land exhausted?

(Mr Hain) The real problem is that there is a lot of farming land not

in proper production, so a genuine reform programme will have to see a

redistribution of land in the way you have described, but also more farming

land brought into production. Perhaps I could quote you a few more statistics

which may help. Around 30 per cent of commercial farm workers are Malawian

or Mozambiquan.

41. 30 per cent.

(Mr Hain) Yes, 30 per cent, so it is a serious situation affecting the

entire region, which the Chairman drew our attention to at the beginning.

42. If these figures are right, these are huge employers of labour.

(Mr Hain) They are huge employers of labour, yes.

Mr Illsley

43. On the back of that question, we have been just been speaking of

the idea that there is going to be a willingness to sell out at a fair price,

and that there will be fair compensation for a landowner who is taken away

from his land. At the moment, those white farmers do not want to leave the

land. Obviously, if it is down to a situation whereby they had to be willing

to sell and be fairly compensated, you could have stalemate years from now

because they do not want to move from that land as it is now. There is

unlikely to be any pace of reform of the land surely.

(Mr Hain) I think a sensible policy would be able to address this

matter. As the Commercial Farm Workers Union said only yesterday, there are

many thousands of hectares of land in Government ownership which are simply

not being farmed. So that is the first priority. Then we continue through

to redistribute. May I add one other brief point. It is absolutely vital,

when this redistribution of land reform process takes place, that the farming

land remains in production; providing jobs and providing agricultural output,

which amongst other things, can be exported and feed the neighbouring people.

Dr Godman

44. One last question on this section. Free market solutions and

structural adjustment programmes advocated by the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund they are inappropriate, are they not, in cases

such as this which we face in Zimbabwe? Elsewhere, your African experience

would suggest that such free market solutions, as advocated by these two

institutions, are inappropriate.

(Mr Hain) I would not want to put it as straightforwardly as that, if

I may say so. What has been interesting is how other African countries, for

example, Kenya, are at the late stages of so far successful negotiations with

the IMF on financial support of presumably the same kind. Other African

countries in the region have been able to benefit from the IMF and the World

Bank's support. I think Zimbabwe could do so as well but not under the

present policies. Just imposing, as it were, a primitive free market agenda

on a country like Zimbabwe would not be appropriate, but that is not what the

IMF and the World Bank have suggested.

Sir David Madel

45. In 1993 the Harare Declaration of 1991 was incorporated into new

principles for potential new members of the Commonwealth. Obviously it also

applied to the existing ones. Do you think, by his present action, that

President Mugabe has put himself outside the Harare Declaration?

(Mr Hain) The Harare Declaration, of course, provided the basis for the

Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group: first of all, to recommend that Nigeria

be suspended from the Commonwealth; and, secondly, more recently, that

Pakistan be suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth, because they both

suffered from military coups. That was the key defining criterion. Of

course, the Declaration includes another principle.

46. Human rights, the rule of law.

(Mr Hain) Indeed. I do think Zimbabwe is in breach of many of those

principles. Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at it, that

does not provide the basis for suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth

because the rules at the present time do not allow that.

47. You mentioned that it was primarily an African problem but

because it is in breach of Harare it is a Commonwealth problem. Would you

expect a very early meeting indeed of the Commonwealth High Commissioners at

the Commonwealth headquarters in London?

(Mr Hain) There is a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action

Group at which the Foreign Secretary will be present in London on the 2 and

3 May. Harare and Zimbabwe will certainly be discussed there.

48. You mentioned that because of the position in relation to Malawi,

there is now a threat of instability in that region of Africa if it goes on.

Would that be correct? If this goes on, it could destabilise an area outside

Zimbabwe.

(Mr Hain) This is what is concerning many of the neighbouring African

countries: Malawi, in a way that you have described; and Mozambique, to which

I have referred. And the South Africans. South Africa has close trading

links with Zimbabwe. In my visit, a little over two months ago, Ministers

there expressed privately their real concern and shared our own policy

perspective on the situation.

49. That being the case, is the Government going to raise the matter

with the General Assembly of the United Nations, or the Security Council, or

both?

(Mr Hain) What I think ought to be done is what we are doing step by

step in a measured way. We have approached Commonwealth. We have approached

the Organisation for African Unity. We have had discussions with the

President of Nigeria. Other discussions are taking place with leaders of

African countries for precisely the reasons you allude to.

50. You would welcome a greater sense of speed by the Commonwealth

High Commissions, given what you have told us this morning? Waiting until May

2. Why can we not have a meeting tomorrow of the High Commissioners?

(Mr Hain) The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is the only body,

under the rules of the Commonwealth, charged with being able to act in this

fashion. That is the priority. All of the High Commissioners in London, as

well as our diplomatic colleagues in posts both in Zimbabwe and the

neighbouring countries, indeed in Europe, know about these and share them.

Sir David Madel: Thank you.

Mr Chidgey

51. Minister, how strong do you believe President Mugabe's position

to be in Zimbabwe?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to comment upon the position of a foreign

President.

52. Can I ask you then, is the Foreign Secretary's decision to meet

the Opposition meant to be an indication of this Government's support for this

Opposition?

(Mr Hain) No. We do not have any view on whether the Opposition or the

ruling party should win the elections or be the dominant force. That is a

matter for the Zimbabwean people. We have discussions with Opposition parties

in virtually all the countries with which we have diplomatic relations.

53. You said earlier in your discussion with us that President Mugabe

was definitely the person in charge. I understand that point. I understand

also that there is quite a deal of internal democracy within Zanu/PF. I

wondered if you had any views on how we could encourage the growth of

democracy with Zanu/PF.

(Mr Hain) What Britain should be doing is sticking to the policy, which

I have enunciated, that we are the friends of the Zimbabwean people. We bear

no hostility towards individual members of the ruling party. There is

considerable dissent, I can confirm, within the ruling party at a very senior

level, of the direction of the country. To be honest, from what I can tell,

virtually every Zimbabwean is concerned about the direction of the present

policy. So the debate which is now happening, can I briefly emphasise: if I

may say so, the key objective that we should all focus upon now is the

important next step in Zimbabwe's future, which is the coming elections. It

is absolutely vital that those elections are free and fair. That is our

principal policy objective. I do not think that the present situation can

easily be resolved in a way that we would all like - Zimbabweans and ourselves

- without the elections being conducted in a free and fair fashion and the

outcome being respected.

54. In that context, you have mentioned several times this morning

the importance of the other regional countries. May I ask you whether you

feel, as I do, that the influence and engagement of South Africa is absolutely

vital to this process, both for South Africa's interest as the largest trading

partner within Zimbabwe, but also as being able to take a lead, as you

yourself have said, in providing an African solution to an African problem.

I wonder if you could be a little more open or broad in how important South

Africa sees their role in trying to resolve this situation?

(Mr Hain) I think the fact that President Mbeki plans to make his

second visit to Harare, within a short space of time, speaks for itself.

55. No more?

(Mr Hain) No more, no less.

Mr Illsley

56. Just on the back of that question, how big a fear is there that

President Mugabe will abrogate the constitution and not call the election?

(Mr Hain) President Mugabe assured the Foreign Secretary that he would

call elections soon. In fact, he indicated in Cairo, next month. We see no

reason to doubt his word, in that respect, given to the Foreign Secretary.

Could I just say that the elections must be held within four months of the

dissolution of Parliament. That is by 11 August. The date of the election

must be fixed by 7 July, otherwise there will be a breach of the constitution.

Chairman

57. On 2 May specifically in the Cairo Conference?

(Mr Hain) No specific date but next month was the period given to the

Foreign Secretary.

Mr Wilshire

58. Minister, would you agree that there are human rights abuses

taking place in Zimbabwe at the moment?

(Mr Hain) I thought that was pretty evident.

59. Do you agree that there is an incitement to racial hatred taking

place?

(Mr Hain) In respect of the way that white peaceful demonstrators in

the peaceful march through Harare a few weeks ago were deliberately targeted

by supporters of the ruling party, I think, yes. There are clear instances

of racist attacks. In respect of white farmers being targeted and the general

climate that many whites in Zimbabwe now feel, obviously the situation is

deteriorating.

60. Would you agree that what we are now seeing is the beginnings of

ethnic cleansing?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to use that phrase. This phrase has been used

in an inflammatory way by the Opposition. I think we should take this

opportunity, if I may say so, to adopt a measured response. To compare what

is happening in Zimbabwe with what happened in Kosovo I would have thought was

ludicrous. It does not make it any more acceptable to find the lawlessness

and violence and now deaths of all sorts of people. I do not think the

targeting of the predominantly black (though multi-racial) Opposition, with

the whole succession of killings, with up to 100 people violently attacked,

I do not think you can describe that as ethnic cleansing because it is often

black on black, but it is equally serious.

61. Chairman, I would just observe that it was not me who mentioned

Kosovo, it was the Minister. The point I want to put to the Minister is this:

that if we do have human rights abuses taking place, if we do have incitements

to racial hatred - whether or not we have ethnic cleansing beginning is

clearly a matter on which we do not agree - but is your thesis that, given

those things are taking place in Zimbabwe, what we need are robust words?

Should the world community just simply talk about this, or is it not the time

when the world community does something about it?

(Mr Hain) First of all, I do not see how you can describe the

cleaning-out of black farm workers on the farm of the white farmer who was

recently killed as being ethnic cleansing. I cannot see how you describe it

As for robust words, Mr Rowlands referred to the fact that I have been very

robust. Some people have said I have been too robust. I have felt it my

responsibility to give a very clear message. I do agree with you, Mr

Wilshire, that the international community does need to take its own

responsibilities seriously, which is exactly why we approached all of the

different international fora in the way that I described.

62. You say you agree with me. I certainly agree with you in that we

should not see this as a unilateral United Kingdom versus Zimbabwe issue.

What I do believe is that we should see it as a world issue for taking action.

You said at the beginning of your evidence that you were reluctant to take

about the UN role in this. Notwithstanding that reluctance, can I press you

to say why you are reluctant to? Is there not a role for the UN to take

action?

(Mr Hain) There may well be. I am not reluctant to discuss the UN, in

fact I said it had been discussed in New York. There is a progression to

these matters. If an African solution can be found to this African problem

that would be the best solution.

63. What suggestions have we put to the United Nations about action

that the United Nations could take?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to go into detailed discussion about what we

are saying through private diplomacy. What we need to achieve is a successful

resolution of this crisis?

64. Have you or have you not proposed to the United Nations that they

should take some action?

(Mr Hain) At this stage we have concentrated on doing what I have

described, which is approaching the Commonwealth, which is approaching the

organisation for African unity, neighbouring African States and one of the

most powerful African leaders, President Slavasinger. That has been our

priority. The question of the United Nations involvement may well come at a

later stage. What we are interested in is effective action, not gestures.

65. With respect, that is not answering the question that I asked.

The question that I asked was, "Has the British Government put any proposals

to the United Nations for them to take action?"

(Mr Hain) No, we have not asked the United Nations to take action. We

have had discussions with our colleagues in the United Nations. If you are

interested in serious diplomacy as opposed to gestures these things have to

be approached in a measured and a progressive fashion.

66. Can I ask you what contact you have had with the various

international financial bodies with a view to suggesting that they take

action?

(Mr Hain) Effectively President Mugabe has imposed negative sanctions

on himself by the inability of the International Monetary Fund and the World

Bank to actually support Zimbabwe in the way that, other things being equal,

and the different policies we would all like them to do. We have not needed

to talk to the IMF or any other international financial institution about

action against Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe has prevented itself from receiving

support from us.

67. Whilst that is true it must be blindingly obvious to everybody

concerned that if there is to be a solution to the problems in Zimbabwe at

some stage it will require the involvement of the IMF and others. Therefore,

would it not be sensible to encourage world financial institutions to make it

crystal clear that they too will require change before they are prepared to

join in any sort of discussion?

(Mr Hain) With due respect, Mr Wilshire, that is exactly what I said.

The IFIs have not been able to agree a programme of support they want to

provide because the Government of Zimbabwe has been unable to change its

policies. There have been calls, not from this Committee, I am pleased to

say, for sanctions and other tough action of the kind that Mr Wilshire is

alluding to. It is very significant that the leader of the opposition Morgan

Tsvangirai has explicitly said he does not want sanctions. He does not want

these kind of instant gestures which may seem as if Britain is taking some

action but could well have a totally counter-productive effect, not least, on

the people in Zimbabwe who are suffering terribly, as they are at the present

time. If the Opposition takes that view I think we should all take heed of

it.

68. You said in reply to my colleague, Sir David Madel, about the

Commonwealth, if I understood you correctly, that if a country becomes a

military dictatorship Commonwealth rules allow for its suspension, expulsion

or whatever else it may decide. Did I hear you correctly when you said that

there are no rules within the Commonwealth institutions that allow us to take

action again human rights abuses. Is that what you were saying?

(Mr Hain) What I said was that the remit of the Commonwealth

Ministerial Action Group, which is the only body to act for the Commonwealth

in between heads of government conferences - the last one was in Durban last

November - only enable action to be taken in the terms of suspension. Gambia,

for example, is still on the agenda of the CMAG. Cameroon was discussed at

the meeting of CMAG in New York and Zimbabwe will be discussed, because

Britain asked that it be so, at the next meeting. Can I also just briefly

add, I was at a meeting of CMAG, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group,

and one of the leading voices on behalf of the British Government in early

October that urged a widening of the remit of CMAG precisely to address the

wider issues raised by the Harare declaration in terms of human rights abuses,

bad governance and so on. That was agreed by CMAG but it was put off at the

Durban CHOGM meeting for consideration by a high level group, which is chaired

by South Africa and has to report back to the next Commonwealth heads of

government meeting.

69. The Commonwealth can suspend Zimbabwe if it chooses to?

(Lord MacDonald) No. Not unless there is a military coup.

Chairman

70. The precedence are for a military coup. There is no precedence

for any human rights matters being the basis for suspension?

(Mr Hain) There is a precedent for them being addressed, as I have said

in respect of the Gambia and Cameroon, but there is not a precedent for

suspension. The rules do not permit it.

Mr Wilshire

71. Can I be clear on that, is it precedent for it or is the Minister

saying that the rules technically do not allow it. I think that is a very

important distinction.

(Mr Hain) Unless there was a consensus amongst the heads of government

of the Commonwealth - they do not have to formally meet - that action could

be taken.

Chairman

72. There is no chance of African colleagues agreeing to such a

suspension in the case of Zimbabwe?

(Mr Hain) No, I do not think there is, that is the plain statement of

fact.

Chairman: I would like to move on to citizenship. Mr Mackinlay.

Mr Mackinlay

73. I would like to ask you about a very narrow area, Minister,

arithmetically mainly, presumably the people who live in Zimbabwe, to whom we

owe obligations, there is like a ranking order, there are people who are

demonstrably British citizens. I guess, perhaps you might amplify on that,

there might be some who are Zimbabwean citizens but have relinquished United

Kingdom citizenship, and then there might be others. I wonder if you can give

us some amplification on what you see as the numbers, bearing in mind, I

think, even emanating from British Government circles there is a bit of

ambiguity. There is talk about 20,000 British nationals and then we have also

heard the figure 15,000. We have obligations to everyone in terms of human

justice and for humanitarian reasons, I accept that. There must be a ranking

order for priority?

(Mr Hain) I am happy to the clarify the situation.

Chairman

74. Please.

(Mr Hain) I think the Foreign Affairs Committee received in confidence

a document describing some of these matters. As of the end of last week there

updated. Overwhelmingly these are Zimbabwean citizens who can, however, claim

British passports and register as British nationals either directly themselves

or through their parents or grandparents.

75. Would have unrestricted right of access to the United Kingdom?

(Mr Hain) If you are a British passport holder that is clearly the

case.

Mr Mackinlay

76. Do you think there is also a group amongst the Africans, and

there is probably a small minority of Asian people there, who are equally

entitled but it probably has not been activated or they are unaware of their

rights on a comparable basis to the last group you referred to?

(Mr Hain) I would not want to speculate or guess on what the total is.

77. No.

(Mr Hain) I do not think we should see this as a white/black issue. In

fact some of the media coverage has focused too much on this recently. More

black citizens have been killed as a result of this lawlessness than whites.

78. I agree with you. You probably missed my point, it seems to me

that the group you referred to, which people who are Zimbabwean citizens , who

have a right to a British passport from the point of view of London, you say

that is rising 14,500, many of them are not white, many are African, and so

on, I wonder if that could grow considerably? There must be some assessment

of what the maximum number would be, is there not?

(Mr Hain) I do want to---

79. We must have these records back from pre-1981?

(Mr Hain) We think there is up to 20,000 people in Zimbabwe who may

qualify. We cannot be exactly sure. This is an issue that goes back

generations. This enables me to briefly make this point, these are people who

want to stay in Zimbabwe, they want to continue to farm the land, to

I think it is important we keep a focus on that. All of our diplomacy and all

of the, I hope, pronouncements and statements of this Committee ultimately

Chairman

80. It is the interests of Zimbabwe to have their skills.

(Mr Hain) It is very much in the interests of Zimbabwe to have their

skills. One of the most disturbing and saddening features of the current farm

invasions is that those skills are not being able to be deployed, as a result

of which the country is being hurt.

Mr Rowlands

81. May I seek clarification on these numbers, 14,500 are registered

as British nationals with the High Commission and therefore either have

British passports or would be issued with them on request; that is right?

(Mr Hain) That is right.

82. You think there may be another 5,500 who may qualify as well, if

you talk about the figure of 20,000?

(Mr Hain) Yes, that is our best estimate.

83. British citizenship is very clearly and narrowly defined?

(Mr Hain) Indeed. You cannot be certain until an individual presents

him or herself at the High Commission and that can be established.

84. Of those 14,500 who registered how many are farmers as opposed

to people who lived in what was Rhodesia, and now Zimbabwe, retired

pensioners, ex-public service workers and others, who may not be directly

effected by the present conflict?

(Mr Hain) I do not have figures on that. I am happy to establish those

figures, if I am able to, and provide them to the Committee in writing.

(Mr Hain) Yes, indeed. Although I respect your focus on this problem,

because it could ultimately be an issue for Britain, I want to stress that

everything that is said or done at the present time must concentrate on the

rights of those people to stay in Zimbabwe, as they wish to do.

86. One further clarification on the issue of citizenship, is it the

case that any Commonwealth citizen who has a parent born in the United Kingdom

has the right to a vote in the United Kingdom?

(Mr Hain) The detail of those matters is a matter obviously for the

Home Office. Can I make one other point, I will happily return to it, if you

wish, in some cases many of these individuals will go to other countries.

Some have already gone to South Africa, some of their children have gone to

the South Africa. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also countries that

they tend to move to. I do not think you should anticipate what may happen.

87. You have repeatedly said throughout your evidence this morning

that you wanted a measured response. You also, I think, put a lot of

emphasise on this forthcoming delegation. Do you have any reason to believe

that this forthcoming delegation will have any sense of authority and will

have to come to any understanding about these issues? We have been trying all

morning to discover whether there is any influences on President Mugabe to

alter the main policy. You described you tried to utilise the President of

Nigeria, neighbouring states, the Commonwealth and OANU. If this delegation

in coming do you have any reason to believe it will come with any sense of

authority or come to any kind of understanding that could actually bring the

immediate crisis to an end if there is some sort of understanding reached

between yourselves and this delegation?

(Mr Hain) At a time when people are being killed and many are being

beaten up and violence and lawlessness is taking place it is the duty of

British ministers to explore every option and to look for and hope for success

rather than anticipate failure. I hope it will be possible for our

discussions with that delegation to be productive. I hope that the influences

being brought to bear on Zimbabwe in the region, through the Commonwealth,

through the organisation for African unity and quite possibly in the end

through the United Nations will also be productive. I think it is our duty

to explore every opportunity that we have.

88. Nobody is denying that. You raised a lot of hope and you placed

for weeks and during this "coming for weeks" there has been violence, there

has been murder and there has been burning.

(Mr Hain) We have been informed by the High Commission that the Foreign

Minister Dr Mudenge will be leading the delegation. Mr Nkomo will be also

be on it, the Minister for Local Government and National Housing and Dr

Shamuyaria, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Those are fairly senior

ministers. Obviously we hope they will have the authority to, as I same sure

they will, to talk to us.

89. May I suggest we indicate that this delegation should come as

speedily as possible now?

(Mr Hain) We do want it to come as speedily as possible. The Foreign

Secretary is in India at the present time and we are hoping a convenient time

can be made as soon as possible, hopefully next week.

90. You rightly rejected the concept of sanctions of the kind that

have been suggested. There is, indeed, one area where we should indicate very

clearly that at this moment in time we have no intention of continuing with

any form of arms licensing to Zimbabwe. I know we will have an opportunity

to cross-examine you in much closer detail within the next fortnight or so on

arms licensing policy, however can I seek clarification from you that there

are no standard licences being issued? They were issued in February, after

the statement about tightening up. Could you, please, just clarify the

position of the Government towards any Hawks spares at this moment in time?

(Mr Hain) The Hawk spares, as I understand it, have been used for a

couple of Hawk aircrafts, which are serviceable in the Congo, the Hawk spares

have gone out. We have had no request for new Hawk spares and I think that

if there were to be any exports or application for them they would be very

seriously considered in light of the current situation and, of course, in the

light of the Congo war. Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo is reportedly

costing the country $1 million a day and is bleeding its budget dry. We have

a very clear policy, which will apply to Zimbabwe as to other countries,

particularly in the current delicate situation with the crisis in Zimbabwe,

that we will not supply any arms which could be used for either external

aggression or internal repression.

91. Those Hawk spares went to Hawks that are flying in the Congo?

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

92. That conflicted with the criteria.

(Mr Hain) That was in honour of an existing contract for planes that

were supplied by the previous Government in the early 1980s and the early

1990s. The present situation in Zimbabwe and obviously the crisis in Zimbabwe

will have to be taken into account in any fresh consideration. There are none

that I am aware of that are coming in at the moment in terms of an export

licence application.

Mr Chidgey

93. Just to reinforce the last point, if I can, is it not the case,

Minister, that the Government's decision on 24th February to grant those seven

Standard Individual Export Licences for the export of Hawk spares does that

not conflict with the Prime Minister's claim, made over a month ago, that the

Government was tightening up its policy on the export licences for the

countries intervening in the conflict in the DRC?

(Mr Hain) I do not think so. I think it was about a few spares for

Hawk aircrafts. We do not know whether the spares were actually used for the

two planes in the Congo. I do not think that conflicts at all with a very

clear statement about what will be the policy in the future in this respect.

94. We talked about the policy that was set out by the Prime Minister

and it seems to me that decisions taken subsequent to that were against what

the Prime Minister told us the policy was. What we do in the future is

another issue. I think it is important to recognise that we did not get it

right in this one so we can get it right in the future.

(Mr Hain) You will beware that the Prime Minister actually made the

announcements on both occasions, so that is where it rests.

Dr Godman

95. You mentioned holding discussions with opposition politicians,

for example Morgan Tsvangirai who leads what might be described as a

heterogenous opposition, brought together only in regard to its opposition to

the ZANU/PF and President Mugabe. What about cabinet colleagues of Mr Mugabe?

What about Eddison Zvobgo, is it not the case that he is attempting to

revitalise Zambea and that he might be amenable to discussing in a

constructive way a socially just land reform and radical changes in the

ownership and the tenure of the land?

(Mr Hain) I appreciate your questions, Dr Godman, but I do not want to

speculate on the individual members of the ZANU/PF party, however high they

are, but there is considerable descent within ZANU/PF, which is unusual given

its history. I know there are progressive voices who well understand what

needs to be done, who do not agree with the present policy of the President

and Government and who would wish to see a much more constructive approach.

96. I do not want to ask you difficult questions.

(Mr Hain) That is your job, is not it?

97. Well, questions that might cause you embarrassment in your

continuing discussions. Is it not the case that President Zobu and his

colleagues are pretty close to Cyril Ramaphosa of the ANC and could not a

combination of such individuals, such as Mr Zobu and Mr Ramaphosa play an

influential mediating constraining role in combination where the President and

his supporters are concerned.

(Mr Hain) I think it is important that all good friends of Zimbabwe

come to its aid at the present time, as we are attempting to do. I respect

your question and your knowledge of the situation. I do not deny your right

to ask it in a helpful way but I do not want to speculate on individual

members of the party.

98. Let us talk about parties, the ANC has been fairly subdued in

terms of, if you like, intervening in a constructive way in Zimbabwe, is that

not the case?

(Mr Hain) The ANC has enjoyed close relations with the ruling party.

Can I say too that many ZANU/PF MPs are actually now standing as independents.

Some ministers find themselves in a situation where they are not being

automatically chosen any more, so there is obviously a change on the way.

99. The South African Government, the President and prominent members

of the ANC could play a very helpful role in helping to sort things out?

(Mr Hain) I assume that is why President Mbeki is due to visit Harare

soon.

Chairman

100. Escom is supplying electricity at a great loss to Zimbabwe.

(Mr Hain) Indeed. I met the Chairman of Escom?) only yesterday and he

was very exercised about this. I think Mozambique is in a similar

predicament. Can I stress too, particularly in response to Dr Godman's

constructive points, that the Southern Africa Development Community - whose

Chairman is President Chissano, with whom the Foreign Secretary has discussed

this matter, as I have with the Mozambique Foreign Minister, Leonardo Simao

-are equally concerned. I think that SADC clearly has a role to play their.

Dr Godman

101. With regard to World Bank's structural adjustment programme,

it did not work too well in Zambia and it is important we do not have that

kind of clumsy international intervention in Zimbabwe, would you agree?

(Mr Hain) I very much agree. I think lessons have been learned from

the Zambian experience.

102. The World Bank in future will not be as clumsy as it was in

Zambia.

(Mr Hain) I hope that the World Bank is never clumsy.

Dr Godman: Very clumsy.

Sir Peter Emery

103. I do not think we can hold you responsible for the World

Bank. May I clear up two points, there has been a number of questions about

land resettlement. I think it would be useful to get on record that the

British Government has, since independence, actually paid a considerable

amount of money to Zimbabwe for land resettlement schemes. Can you tell the

Committee how much?

(Mr Hain) œ44 million. Most of it in the 1980s.

104. We have made a major contribution.

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, I agree. It not as if we have done nothing and it

is not as if we do not want to do anything. It is the misguided policies which

have blocked not just us but now the Americans and others from contributing

to the solution to this matter.

105. I wanted to get it on record because some people tried to

suggest we have done nothing but that is not the case.

(Mr Hain) I am grateful.

106. I return, again, to the questions that I put to you. You did

say that we should explore every opportunity to influence Mugabe. I think we

have all agreed that the opportunity is greatest coming from Africans. One

of the leading Africans is Kofi Annan from Ghana, respected throughout the

world - we have been to many other areas Kosovo, Russia and all of these

things - I would have thought he was eminently suitable to try and bring

influence on Mugabe, who has particular relationships with Ghana. His first

wife was Ghanaian and he worked in Ghana. Therefore there is a relationship.

Surely we ought to be pressing Kofi Annan and the United Nations to look at

every opportunity to influence this man. I am surprised that you have been

reticent, or it appears the Government has been reticent, to bring that about

immediately.

(Mr Hain) We are not reticent, Sir Peter, we are just concerned that

our international diplomacy on this matter is a consistent and a progressive

one. I am sure Kofi Annan is deeply concerned about this situation. I am not

trying to be defensive or reticent, I am simply trying to signal that these

matter are best pursued through private diplomacy.

107. Yes.

(Mr Hain) It may be frustrating but then---

108. I do not wish to complicate the situation but if you are

trying to tell me that, perhaps, my wishes are being complied with privately,

is that what you are suggesting?

(Mr Hain) I am not trying to tell you anything. I know are you trying

to ask me.

Sir David Madel

109. Is your private diplomacy energetic?

(Mr Hain) It is extremely energetic, particularly that of the Foreign

Secretary. Even in the last few days while he has been in India he has been

constantly on the telephone to pursue international diplomacy.

Chairman

110. One final point about the elections, hopefully free and fair.

We understand from you this morning that the speaker of the Zimbabwean

Parliament has said they would welcome election monitors. Are we, as a

Government, ready to respond positively if there were such opportunities?

(Mr Hain) Yes, indeed, we clearly are. This is the absolute priority

at the present time. When you have had one hundred members of the Opposition

attacked and some ten killed in the last few weeks this is a very, very

serious situation. I think this is probably the most critical time in

Zimbabwe's short history, arguably even in the whole of the country's history,

even when it was under the label of Rhodesia, and it is vital that these

elections are pretty fair.

111. Can I thank you and your colleague very much. Alas, we have

heard further evidence of the tragedy of Zimbabwe today. It is a friendly

country, a country in decay and it has been a helpful dialogue between the

Committee and yourselves today.

(Mr Hain) I am very grateful for your interest, Mr Chairman.

House of Commons Session 1999-2000

Publications on the internet

Foreign Affairs Committee Publications

Foreign Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you can browse the Minutes of Evidence which were ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 April 2000.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000

Members present:

Mr Donald Anderson, in the Chair

Mr David Chidgey

Sir Peter Emery

Mr Norman A Godman

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Andrew Mackinlay Sir David Madel

Mr Ted Rowlands

Sir John Stanley

Dr Phyllis Starkey

Mr David Wilshire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Examination of witnesses

MR PETER HAIN, a Member of the House, Minister of State, and MS FRANCES MACLEOD, Deputy Head of African Department (Southern), Foreign and Commonwealth Office, examined.

Question Number

1 - 19

20 - 39

40 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 99

100 -111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examination of witnesses (Questions 1 - 19)

TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000

MR PETER HAIN and MS FRANCES MACLEOD

Chairman

1. Minister, we are pleased that you responded to our invitation to come before us because of the crisis in Zimbabwe. We welcome you and your colleagues here. We know that today is the 20th anniversary of the independence of Zimbabwe and recognise that the people of Zimbabwe have very little to celebrate on this day, given the crisis politically, economically, and, of course, in our bilateral relations, which pains many of us, particularly yourself obviously, who have been closely associated with liberation in Africa over the years. What would be helpful for the Committee is first, if you could begin by giving us an assessment of the current situation. You have helpfully circulated a statement. If you could summarise the very key points of that and give us an assessment of the current position as a platform for questions.

(Mr Hain) Thank you very much, Chairman. First of all, I welcome the opportunity to address you because the situation is increasingly grave. Only within the last hour I have learnt that another farmer has been killed. I have instructed our High Commissioner in Harare to protest in the strongest possible terms at the fact that apparently an ambulance, which sought to come to his aid while he was still alive, was blocked from getting through by war veterans with the police standing by. The situation is very serious indeed. It is the case that Britain, of course, is the oldest friend of Zimbabwe. Last week both Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, and I spoke to Morgan Tsvangirai, the Leader of the Movement for Democratic Change. I met one of his senior colleagues and Robin Cook also spoke to the President of the Commercial Farmers Union. The messages that we are getting from the people of Zimbabwe is that the British Government should continue to have dialogue with the Zimbabwe Government and apply what pressure we can through international consensus. Since losing the referendum, President Mugabe has sought to divert attention from the growing internal opposition by trying to present Britain as his opponent in the coming election which, of course, we are not. The international community, including the United States, the Commonwealth and African states, share our concerns at the deteriorating situation. Only last Monday, Britain's policy was unanimously backed by our European Union partners. On Sunday, both the Foreign Secretary and I spoke to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and he told us that his Foreign Minister Lamido was due to arrive in Harare today. We are all united in urging the Government of Zimbabwe to end the lawlessness and stop the violence, much of it officially incited. The killing over the weekend of a white farmer and the savage beating of his colleagues was tragic. So, of course, is the death within the last few hours of another farmer. Equally disturbing, and I will just focus briefly on this, was the killing, apparently by Government supporters, of two Opposition members driving in an Opposition vehicle. Eight members of the Opposition have been killed in the last two weeks and more than 100 hospitalised. Opposition leaders are now in fear of assassination, so it is absolutely vital that we continue to seek opportunities for constructive dialogue. We cannot have dialogue when the hand of friendship is rejected. Therefore, we welcome President Mugabe's agreement to send a delegation to London, probably next week. We agree with the people of Zimbabwe that elections should be held within the time allowed by the constitution and that they should be free and fair. We have already secured agreement from our EU partners to offer international monitors and we are discussing the same issue with the Commonwealth. We hope that President Mugabe will accept this offer. I am pleased that yesterday the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament was reported as saying that he unreservedly welcomed foreign observers. Britain stands ready with our international partners to support a team of election monitors, just we have done during the past year, for example, in South Africa and Mozambique. The very future of Zimbabwe depends on the elections being free and fair. Britain with not interfere in these elections. The destiny of Zimbabwe lies in the hands of its own people. I hope that Zimbabwe will be transformed from its present serious condition into a powerhouse in Africa for economic prosperity, good governance, and respect for human rights. If new policies emerge to achieve that, Zimbabwe will find in Britain not just an old friend but a new partner.

2. I am obliged. Minister, last week when President Mugabe was in Cuba, Vice Present Msika urged the squatters to end their occupation. Now you are saying that the Speaker is prepared to welcome international observers to the elections. Has there been anything positive from President Mugabe?

(Mr Hain) In respect of international observers?

3. In respect of international observers, in respect of urging restraint on the squatters, and generally seeking to help to ease the situation.

(Mr Hain) President Mugabe has apparently told foreign African leaders, colleagues of his, that he might be willing to accept Commonwealth observers. We will have to see what transpires. Of course, he met leaders of the Commercial Farming Union last night, (yesterday), and they had a good meeting and constructive talks. However, there has been a problem throughout these past weeks about the question of the squatting. On the other hand, the Vice President has been very clear.

4. The Vice President does not rule, with respect.

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

5. Has there been anything at all positive or constructive, in attempting to lessen the crisis, from President Mugabe?

(Mr Hain) The meeting yesterday with the farmers appeared to reduce the tension, certainly the farmers' leaders thought so. I cannot, however, say that President Mugabe has displayed the leadership that he ought to have done to ensure that the law was enforced, to ensure that the violence was ended. Indeed, many of his statements have appeared to incite an escalation of the problem in contrast to the Vice President who, in a conversation with me over the phone and in public statements, has said that the law should be upheld. Of course, the President is now in a position, as are many of his Ministers, of defying not just the rule of law in a general sense but a decision of his own high court, which is a very serious matter.

6. He does this, notwithstanding there is a real danger of a crisis of confidence. 40 per cent of the export earnings of Zimbabwe come from commercial farmers, mainly tobacco. If they default on their bank loans, there will be a further financial crisis. This could affect, in terms of morale, not only inward investment but it could lead to an exodus of trained people both in Zimbabwe and, presumably, the infection could spread to neighbouring countries too.

(Mr Hain) I think you are absolutely right. This is an issue not just of serious crisis for Zimbabwe but for the entire region. For example, the Malawians tell us that many, many (perhaps millions) of their citizens are actually working on the farms as farm labourers. If we saw the pictures on television yesterday of the white farmers' farmsteads abandoned now with its farm workers' homes burnt, its tobacco crops rotting under canvass or some other protection, Zimbabwe's whole economy depends critically on the successful agricultural sector and its foreign exchange reserves, which are virtually empty, on successful exports of tobacco and agricultural produce. So this is a situation which is not only creating internal instability but a real crisis of huge economic proportions for the whole country and the region.

7. Given the further tragedy of the death of a farmer, and the possible effects on investment in South Africa itself, are you surprised that the political leadership in South Africa has not stirred itself more?

(Mr Hain) President Mbeki did visit Harare some weeks ago and he plans another visit in the near future. I know from my own discussions with leadership at the top level of the neighbouring countries—and indeed with President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and the discussion that the Foreign Secretary had with the Secretary General of the Organisation of African Unity—that all African countries share our concerns completely and are seeking to bring what influence they can.

Sir Peter Emery

8. There is no reason why you should know, but I was one of the Members of the House that was asked by the Prime Minister to monitor the first elections, the last election in South Rhodesia and the election by which President Mugabe came to power and Zimbabwe was, in fact, created. I saw the discipline of those people who are the remains of the war veterans. Can you really believe that they are taking this action without the approval of the President?

(Mr Hain) No.

9. So that means to say that we must realise that Mugabe is in the dock, accused of really taking no action to stop this, and having been willing to allow it to happen?

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, I think it is quite clear that one of the reasons for the illegal farm invasions in the first place, were acts of orchestration from the very highest level of the ruling Zanu/PF party. That could not have happened, given the way Zimbabwe is governed, without the President's authority. Indeed, one of the regrettable features about this deteriorating situation is that he, at least until yesterday, when he met the leaders of the Commercial Farmers Union, has not been prepared to use his full authority as President to stop this lawlessness and stop the violence which has now resulted in deaths.

10. What steps have you taken to see what action the United Nations could take, or whether Kofi Annan could use his influence on the President?

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, what we have done from the beginning, in conversations that I have had personally with Zimbabwe Ministers, and that the Foreign Secretary had with President Mugabe had in Cairo only two weeks ago, in the conversations we have had with the Commonwealth, with the Organisation of African Union neighbouring African states, and discussions which have occurred at the United Nations in New York through our permanent representative, what we have sought to do consistently is to say that this is not in the interests of Zimbabwean people. President Mugabe has sought to present the current situation as if Britain is the enemy. Britain is a long standing friend. He must not be allowed to present it in that fashion. It is very important that all the statements that Members of Parliament make, if I may say so, bear that in mind. That we will not fall into his trap of seeking to present this crisis as if it is one of Zimbabwe versus Britain, when all of our international colleagues share our concerns.

11. I understand that. But if we are really friends of the Zimbabwean people, we must have this brought to an end as soon as possible.

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

12. Because of the confrontation that Mugabe is trying to create between himself and Britain generally, ought we not to be trying, as Lord Carrington suggested, to help other Africans—I use Kofi Annan as a very good example—to argue the case of the law and the case of the people of Zimbabwe rather than Britain alone. We should be using every force outside ourselves to try to bring influence, and particularly Africans, to bring influence on him.

(Mr Hain) That is precisely why I very much welcome the visits to Zimbabwe by the Nigerian Foreign Minister; a visit which followed conversations that the Foreign Secretary and I had with President Obasanjo on Sunday; in turn, following President Obasanjo's convening of the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and President Mugabe. I agree with you completely. That is precisely what we have been seeking to do. In the end this is a problem, which is an African problem, needing an African solution.

13. Kofi Annan has been used to try and bring some influence?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to go into what might or might not be happening at the United Nations. I think the focus should be on African countries at the present time.

Mr Rowlands

14. I too was an observer at the 1980 independence. We knew Mr Mugabe very well in the 1970s and it is very sad to see the arrogance of someone who has been in power for too long. Is it a one man Government? Is there any other body in the Government who can stand up and speak to Mr Mugabe and say, "Look, this is what you are doing to your country"?

(Mr Hain) Mr Rowlands, I appreciate your old expert knowledge and involvement in this matter, but I do not want us to personalise this crisis because that is exactly what has allowed the President to inflame an already serious situation. So to answer your question directly, President Mugabe is in charge of the country, quite clearly. There are, however, alternative voices, both within his Government and within his own party, let alone within the Opposition, which is now a stronger opposition than Zimbabwe has had since independence.

15. When you said you did not want to personalise it, some of your own language has been pretty strong stuff. "Intemperate", "irrational", "lifting two fingers to the courts". These are the phrases you have used in denunciation, not just of the Government but President Mugabe himself. Therefore, I do not quite understand your response to my first question. You, yourself, have lead the denunciation of his behaviour.

(Mr Hain) I have been very robust, as has the Foreign Secretary. You were quite right to quote those. I think it is important that we were robust from the beginning. It is important that no double standards are shown when black African leaders abuse human rights, provoke policies which cause violence and now deaths. That is no different from the old dictatorship of Ian Smith and the racist repression which he was responsible for. It is important that we do not have double standards, which is why I have been robust. But it is very important now that instead of knee-jerk gestures, which I do not suggest you are asking for but have come from some Opposition figures outside this Committee, instead we have measured messages. This is because we do not want the situation to be inflamed further.

16. That implies that influence can help and assist. How is our access to the President these days? For example, has our High Commissioner got direct access to the President? Has he managed to meet him in the last three or four weeks as this crisis unfolded? Is there a personal relationship between the High Commissioner and the President or is that fractured too?

(Mr Hain) He has not been able to meet the President in recent times. I, myself, met the President on 29 October in London. Unfortunately, the following day there was a demonstration by the Gay Rights Campaign, by Peter Tatchell, which caused a further series of outbursts from the President. I met him again in January in the margins of the New York Security Council. I have had regular conversations with Zimbabwe Ministers but I cannot say, other than the meeting which was held under the chairmanship of President Obasanjo in Cairo, that we can claim a strong personal basis for dialogue with the President. That is regrettable.

17. May I seek clarification as to what emerged from the Cairo meeting because I heard slightly conflicting sounds coming from it. The build-up to that meeting was one of forthright denunciation of the kind I described. You and the Foreign Secretary made those denunciations. Then following that meeting there seemed to be an almost act of reconciliation between Mr Mugabe and ourselves, that we would do something further on land reform, as long as he exercised his influence. In those meetings was there a clear understanding of what President Mugabe was going to do to try to calm the situation, and how we would then respond to that calming or not? It seems that since the Cairo meeting things have got worse, not better.

(Mr Hain) The importance of the Cairo meeting was to try to establish a basis for dialogue. I cannot claim that the results showed that it was a roaring success. Nor did we anticipate that the situation would necessarily change dramatically as a result of one albeit lengthy conversation. But the concrete things that came out of that were President Mugabe's acceptance of an invitation from the Foreign Secretary to send a senior delegation to visit us in London and to discuss land reform, the economic crisis, the deteriorating lawlessness, the violence, and all these other problems which are besetting the country, so that was one concrete outcome. There was a discussion. There was a dialogue. That is to be welcomed. I should also just say very briefly that when I have had private discussions with our colleagues in the United States, with my opposite numbers in Europe, with senior members of African Governments, they too have had difficulty in establishing a constructive dialogue with President Mugabe. This has been the heart of the problem in many respects.

Dr Starkey

18. One of the big issues behind all of this is land reform. May I ask a few questions about land reform in Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary issued a statement in April saying that: "Britain is prepared to help fund a land reform programme which is within the rule of law ... [and] to support reform, provided it genuinely addresses the problem of rural poverty." What progress has there actually been so far in Zimbabwe since independence on real land reform, that is, land reform which addresses the problem of rural poverty?

(Mr Hain) In the beginning, in the 1980s, there was some progress on that. During the period the previous Government supplied some £44 million worth of funding to support it. However, it became increasingly obvious that the land reform programme was not achieving its objective which, as you quite rightly stress, was to tackle rural poverty and redress the historic imbalance that had been left over from both colonialism and the racist white minority rule of Ian Smith, of a massive unfairness in the distribution of land. I think we should all acknowledge that there is and was that legacy. But the land reform programme that was being pursued by that Government was not really addressing these matters, so we withdraw our support for it.

19. What date would that be? That you withdrew support? Roughly.

(Mr Hain) From recollection, round about 1988. Of course, it is a matter, for which the Secretary of State for International Development is responsible. I will happily answer in general terms. I would like to add one or two points. She could, no doubt, supply you with any more detailed evidence in writing if you needed it. There was then a land conference called in 1988 to try and address this matter—donor countries and the Zimbabwe Government and non-governmental organisations—where it was clear it was going off the rails. Unfortunately, in the last two years, as the programme has been progressed—without British support, I might add, because we could not support it—around half the properties dispersed have gone to friends of the Government; some places to senior officials, retired officials. Very little of it, if any, is farmed; so the problems of rural poverty have not been addressed. The problems of landless citizens have not been addressed by that land distribution. In addition, the country has lost a much needed source of efficient farming production.

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Chairman

20. And foreign exchange.

(Mr Hain) Yes. As I said earlier on—I cannot stress this too highly - Zimbabwe has very, very serious economic problems at the present time with interest rates sky high. It is around 79 per cent. With inflation at 60 per cent, domestic debts at a third of GDP, unemployment at 50 per cent, and only a day or two of foreign exchange reserves left; and huge debts owed to the outside world, especially countries in the region, which relates back to your first question, which is especially worrying, Mozambique and South Africa: it is this policy, which is being pursued, that is incomprehensible. It does not address the problems of rural poverty. It does not support the need for efficient farm production. It is resulting in violence and lawlessness and now killings. It is an absolutely catastrophic policy.

21. The land reform programme and the agreement with the British Government on the funding of land by acquisition, was presumably part of the Lancaster House Agreement. Were those commitments by the British Government, made at the Lancaster House Agreement, fully discharged? And what about the commitments made by the Zimbabwe Government? Were they fully discharged?

(Mr Hain) As Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary at the time, recently confirmed in the media, the claims that President Mugabe has made effectively about the willingness to compensate on the basis he is now wanting—seizing land and then compensating, passing the bill to Britain—there was no commitment made of that kind. There was always an understanding that there was a problem which had to be addressed, and would be addressed, not just bilaterally but with other donor countries, (as indeed we started to do), and that funding was provided until the programme went awry.

22. So, in your view, where does the blame lie for the fact that the land reform process has not delivered what it was supposed to deliver, which is the alleviation of rural poverty?

(Mr Hain) I think the blame lies clearly with the Government, which has been in power for the last 20 years, headed by its current President. It is interesting to contrast the situation with neighbouring African countries, (South Africa included), where a similar problem of imbalance in the distribution of land between what were the ruling whites and now the majority of the country having a democratic say in running it, a similar imbalance existed but those countries have not addressed it in this inflammatory and catastrophic fashion. They have gone about it progressively with international support. We have always said—and I repeat it today and confirm—that Britain stands ready, in a measured way, to support a genuine land reform programme, including some funding, if it actually addressed rural poverty; if it resulted in farms which were going to be in production; and if it was not handed out to various Government cronies; then we would be able to help. It is significant that the Americans, who have been providing the funding, withdraw their funding only a week ago because they could no longer support this process.

23. In the light of past experience, is it realistic to suppose that either ourselves or the Americans will be able to come to an agreement with the current Zimbabwe Government, where we can fund genuine land reform and be confident they would carry it out?

(Mr Hain) We can continue to try, as we will do when the delegation comes, as has been said from Harare it will do, possibly next week. We will continue to try. It is quite possible that whoever rules the country after the coming elections—and that is a decision for the Zimbabwean people and not for us—will have to adopt new policies in order to save the country and in order to gain the international communities' confidence, both in the region and through donor nations, such as Britain, and also through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which will want to provide financial assistance but have been prevented from doing so by the Zimbabwean Government's unwillingness to reform economic policies.

Sir John Stanley

24. Minister, you said just a moment ago that Britain stands ready to make British taxpayers' money available for land reform. When you say "stands ready", are you saying that as we speak this morning, notwithstanding the events of recent weeks and the last few days in particular, the British Government's offer of British taxpayers' money for land reform is still on the table there today for Mr Mugabe? Is that the position?

(Mr Hain) No. I confirm that we will support a programme of land reform which is transparent, as I have said, cost effective, and contributes to poverty reduction. But we cannot support any Government sponsored programme while land invasions continue, especially since, as I said, half the land has been recently distributed to Government supporters; while the violence has been effectively either condoned or officially incited; and while the squatting is being pursued in defiance of the court without Government action or police action to stop it. We cannot offer support for land reform. There has to be complete change of policy.

25. You are saying then that the offer that the Foreign Secretary made at Cairo has now been withdrawn for the time being?

(Mr Hain) No. I am saying that if this lawlessness stops, if the Zimbabwean Government finds itself ready to discuss genuine land reform, then we will do so. We will explore with the delegation, when it meets the Foreign Secretary, whether there is going to be a change of policy.

26. Minister, the offer of British taxpayers' money, made by the Foreign Secretary, is either on the table or it has been withdrawn. It must be one or the other. As I understood you to say, it has been withdrawn, but you are now saying it is on offer. Could you clarify which it is, please.

(Mr Hain) I think I made it absolutely clear. If there is a change of policy, then we will have discussions about whether we can support it. It is not on offer whilst the present Zimbabwean Government pursues the policy that it is doing. May I say in respect of taxpayers' money, of course £44 million of taxpayers' money was paid by the last Conservative Government in the 1980s, so this is not a matter between parties.

27. So, as of today, the offer has been withdrawn?

(Mr Hain) As of today, we stand ready to discuss it if the policy changes. We have not made an offer where we have said we will hand over the money. We have made an offer and we will have serious discussions and consultations about how we could support it. We have not simply said, "There is a pot of money available." We will hand it over if conditions change. The Secretary of State for International Development and her officials, it is a matter for her ultimately, and she will have to be absolutely assured that this limited finance was going to be directed at helping the rural landless poor, not diverted in the way that it has been.

28. I do not understand, Minister, your difficulty in acknowledging that the offer has been withdrawn. You made it quite clear that the conditions attached to your offer do not apply. That the present Government in Zimbabwe is not complying with the rule of law. That the invasions of white farmland are continuing. In those circumstances the offer is not available. So I do not understand your difficulty in making it clear that the British Government, like the American Government at this time, has withdrawn its offer.

(Mr Hain) Unlike the American Government, we were not funding it, that is the point. If it helps you, Sir John, I am quite happy to say that we will not fund any land reform, to the extent that any offer has been made, because all we have offered to do is to discuss it. Those discussions cannot occur unless the policy changes. We want to have a dialogue about how to change it.

29. So it is not on offer at the present time?

(Mr Hain) No.

30. Thank you. What sum of money was discussed between the Foreign Secretary and Mr Mugabe in terms of the scale of the British Government's funding?

(Mr Hain) No sums of money were discussed.

31. No sums at all?

(Mr Hain) No. Just to go back to your earlier point, this was because President Mugabe showed no willingness to change his policy on squatting and the deteriorating lawlessness on land invasions. Therefore, we could not have a discussion about it. That is why we invited the delegation over to explore what might be possible.

32. I am not trying to drive any wedges between you and the Foreign Secretary, but there are some very significant differences in wording between the basis on which the Foreign Secretary said that British taxpayers' money might be made available for land reform in the House on April 11, and what you have said in front of the Committee this morning in your own written statement. You have said: "I confirm again that we will support a programme of land reform which is transparent, cost effective and contributes to poverty reduction." You use the words "transparent" and "cost effective". I fully accept the Foreign Secretary has also highlighted the need to contribute towards poverty reduction. But within the House on April 11, in answer to the Honourable Member for Burnley, Mr Peter Pike, the Foreign Secretary said: "We remain willing to help further but it must be a programme first that involves the rule of law and a fair price to a willing seller." That is a very, very critical statement. In other words, that the British taxpayer and the British Government's position is that land reform will be funded only in so far as it was a genuinely voluntary process based on a fair price. That is wholly different from phrases like "cost effective" which could indeed be knock-down prices. Your statement makes no reference at all to land reform being dependent on wholly voluntary transactions.

(Mr Hain) There is absolutely no difference between what the Foreign Secretary said and what I said. I am happy to endorse what he said. The point I was making in this statement is that it has to be cost effective from the point of view of the British taxpayer. That is what has to be cost effective.

33. Can you elaborate on that. What do you understand to be cost effective as far as the British taxpayer is concerned? The Foreign Secretary's statement is a clear statement of evaluation that it must be (he has used the phrase) a fair price to a willing seller, which is the valuation statement which everybody understands. It is a valuation arrived at on the basis of a free negotiation between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

(Mr Hain) Because it has to be on that basis—and I am happy both to agree with you and agree with the Foreign Secretary—but what we are not willing to do is hand over the money in a way that President Mugabe is demanding and then have the Government of Zimbabwe deal with it as it wishes. By cost effective we mean that we will only support a land reform programme which genuinely addresses the problem of the rural poor.

34. Can you give us your thinking as to how you would ensure that the British taxpayers' money handed over in these circumstances was used in the way that the present British Government wanted, and on the basis of the valuation criteria that the Foreign Secretary stated in the House. How would you achieve that?

(Mr Hain) That would be for the discussions that need to occur and which so far we have not been able to engage in because of this policy of illegal squatting, which I do not want to go over again, and because there have been no signs that President Mugabe as yet, although the delegation might have a different outcome next week, has been willing to depart from his policy of effectively saying, "We are seizing the land, give us the money." We are not willing to even discuss a land reform programme on that basis.

Dr Godman

35. Following on from Sir John's questions on land reform, may I say I am in agreement with what you say about supporting a programme of land reform which is transparent, cost effective, and contributes to poverty reduction. We all condemn the savage killings of Opposition politicians, farmers, and farm workers. Obviously our sympathies go to their families. Just a couple of questions on statistics. The 4,400 white farmers. Am I right in saying that they own over 30 per cent of the best arable land and that as employers they have a pretty poor record? That many of them have treated their black workers, putting it bluntly, in a brutal fashion?

(Mr Hain) That was certainly the case in the past. Many of them have a mixed record more recently. But what has been interesting about recent times is that the illegal squatting has been resisted as much by the black farm workers as by the farmers themselves because the workers see their own jobs as being in jeopardy. When the television pictures overnight showed their own homes burnt down, in other words, Zimbabwean citizens burning down their own neighbours' homes, the senselessness of this action was revealed.

36. In your opening statement I think you said that there are millions of Malawians employed on these white-owned farms. Was that a slip of the tongue? Was it thousands?

(Mr Hain) No: The Malawian Government has told us that there may be millions. Because the borders are so porous, it is difficult for us to confirm that figure. That is why I am very careful to say the Malawian Government. It is sufficiently concerned to have said that it is very worried about the impact of unemployed workers coming back into their own quarters. They do not have jobs for them.

37. So you accept that there are millions of immigrant workers on these 4,400 farms?

(Mr Hain) I accept that this is what the Malawian Government have told us. It may be that there are also lots of Mozambiquans.

38. You would agree that if we are talking about land reform—and the kind of land reform that you want to see and we want to see, equitable and corruption free land reform—that this will inevitably lead to many of these white farmers being removed?

(Mr Hain) That has to be done by agreement.

39. I am saying, if you are going to have land reform, then by land reform we are inevitably discussing the redistribution of the ownership or the tenure of the land. That means many of these farmers will have to go.

(Mr Hain) Many of them will obviously sell their properties if it is done in a proper fashion. What is also important is that there are whole farming areas which are undeveloped at the moment, being not in production.

40. Is not most of the communal land exhausted?

(Mr Hain) The real problem is that there is a lot of farming land not in proper production, so a genuine reform programme will have to see a redistribution of land in the way you have described, but also more farming land brought into production. Perhaps I could quote you a few more statistics which may help. Around 30 per cent of commercial farm workers are Malawian or Mozambiquan.

41. 30 per cent.

(Mr Hain) Yes, 30 per cent, so it is a serious situation affecting the entire region, which the Chairman drew our attention to at the beginning.

42. If these figures are right, these are huge employers of labour.

(Mr Hain) They are huge employers of labour, yes.

Mr Illsley

43. On the back of that question, we have been just been speaking of the idea that there is going to be a willingness to sell out at a fair price, and that there will be fair compensation for a landowner who is taken away from his land. At the moment, those white farmers do not want to leave the land. Obviously, if it is down to a situation whereby they had to be willing to sell and be fairly compensated, you could have stalemate years from now because they do not want to move from that land as it is now. There is unlikely to be any pace of reform of the land surely.

(Mr Hain) I think a sensible policy would be able to address this matter. As the Commercial Farm Workers Union said only yesterday, there are many thousands of hectares of land in Government ownership which are simply not being farmed. So that is the first priority. Then we continue through to redistribute. May I add one other brief point. It is absolutely vital, when this redistribution of land reform process takes place, that the farming land remains in production; providing jobs and providing agricultural output, which amongst other things, can be exported and feed the neighbouring people.

Dr Godman

44. One last question on this section. Free market solutions and structural adjustment programmes advocated by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund they are inappropriate, are they not, in cases such as this which we face in Zimbabwe? Elsewhere, your African experience would suggest that such free market solutions, as advocated by these two institutions, are inappropriate.

(Mr Hain) I would not want to put it as straightforwardly as that, if I may say so. What has been interesting is how other African countries, for example, Kenya, are at the late stages of so far successful negotiations with the IMF on financial support of presumably the same kind. Other African countries in the region have been able to benefit from the IMF and the World Bank's support. I think Zimbabwe could do so as well but not under the present policies. Just imposing, as it were, a primitive free market agenda on a country like Zimbabwe would not be appropriate, but that is not what the IMF and the World Bank have suggested.

Sir David Madel

45. In 1993 the Harare Declaration of 1991 was incorporated into new principles for potential new members of the Commonwealth. Obviously it also applied to the existing ones. Do you think, by his present action, that President Mugabe has put himself outside the Harare Declaration?

(Mr Hain) The Harare Declaration, of course, provided the basis for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group: first of all, to recommend that Nigeria be suspended from the Commonwealth; and, secondly, more recently, that Pakistan be suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth, because they both suffered from military coups. That was the key defining criterion. Of course, the Declaration includes another principle.

46. Human rights, the rule of law.

(Mr Hain) Indeed. I do think Zimbabwe is in breach of many of those principles. Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at it, that does not provide the basis for suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth because the rules at the present time do not allow that.

47. You mentioned that it was primarily an African problem but because it is in breach of Harare it is a Commonwealth problem. Would you expect a very early meeting indeed of the Commonwealth High Commissioners at the Commonwealth headquarters in London?

(Mr Hain) There is a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group at which the Foreign Secretary will be present in London on the 2 and 3 May. Harare and Zimbabwe will certainly be discussed there.

48. You mentioned that because of the position in relation to Malawi, there is now a threat of instability in that region of Africa if it goes on. Would that be correct? If this goes on, it could destabilise an area outside Zimbabwe.

(Mr Hain) This is what is concerning many of the neighbouring African countries: Malawi, in a way that you have described; and Mozambique, to which I have referred. And the South Africans. South Africa has close trading links with Zimbabwe. In my visit, a little over two months ago, Ministers there expressed privately their real concern and shared our own policy perspective on the situation.

49. That being the case, is the Government going to raise the matter with the General Assembly of the United Nations, or the Security Council, or both?

(Mr Hain) What I think ought to be done is what we are doing step by step in a measured way. We have approached Commonwealth. We have approached the Organisation for African Unity. We have had discussions with the President of Nigeria. Other discussions are taking place with leaders of African countries for precisely the reasons you allude to.

50. You would welcome a greater sense of speed by the Commonwealth High Commissions, given what you have told us this morning? Waiting until May 2. Why can we not have a meeting tomorrow of the High Commissioners?

(Mr Hain) The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is the only body, under the rules of the Commonwealth, charged with being able to act in this fashion. That is the priority. All of the High Commissioners in London, as well as our diplomatic colleagues in posts both in Zimbabwe and the neighbouring countries, indeed in Europe, know about these and share them.

Sir David Madel: Thank you.

Mr Chidgey

51. Minister, how strong do you believe President Mugabe's position to be in Zimbabwe?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to comment upon the position of a foreign President.

52. Can I ask you then, is the Foreign Secretary's decision to meet the Opposition meant to be an indication of this Government's support for this Opposition?

(Mr Hain) No. We do not have any view on whether the Opposition or the ruling party should win the elections or be the dominant force. That is a matter for the Zimbabwean people. We have discussions with Opposition parties in virtually all the countries with which we have diplomatic relations.

53. You said earlier in your discussion with us that President Mugabe was definitely the person in charge. I understand that point. I understand also that there is quite a deal of internal democracy within Zanu/PF. I wondered if you had any views on how we could encourage the growth of democracy with Zanu/PF.

(Mr Hain) What Britain should be doing is sticking to the policy, which I have enunciated, that we are the friends of the Zimbabwean people. We bear no hostility towards individual members of the ruling party. There is considerable dissent, I can confirm, within the ruling party at a very senior level, of the direction of the country. To be honest, from what I can tell, virtually every Zimbabwean is concerned about the direction of the present policy. So the debate which is now happening, can I briefly emphasise: if I may say so, the key objective that we should all focus upon now is the important next step in Zimbabwe's future, which is the coming elections. It is absolutely vital that those elections are free and fair. That is our principal policy objective. I do not think that the present situation can easily be resolved in a way that we would all like—Zimbabweans and ourselves—without the elections being conducted in a free and fair fashion and the outcome being respected.

54. In that context, you have mentioned several times this morning the importance of the other regional countries. May I ask you whether you feel, as I do, that the influence and engagement of South Africa is absolutely vital to this process, both for South Africa's interest as the largest trading partner within Zimbabwe, but also as being able to take a lead, as you yourself have said, in providing an African solution to an African problem. I wonder if you could be a little more open or broad in how important South Africa sees their role in trying to resolve this situation?

(Mr Hain) I think the fact that President Mbeki plans to make his second visit to Harare, within a short space of time, speaks for itself.

55. No more?

(Mr Hain) No more, no less.

Mr Illsley

56. Just on the back of that question, how big a fear is there that President Mugabe will abrogate the constitution and not call the election?

(Mr Hain) President Mugabe assured the Foreign Secretary that he would call elections soon. In fact, he indicated in Cairo, next month. We see no reason to doubt his word, in that respect, given to the Foreign Secretary. Could I just say that the elections must be held within four months of the dissolution of Parliament. That is by 11 August. The date of the election must be fixed by 7 July, otherwise there will be a breach of the constitution.

Chairman

57. Was not May specifically mentioned in the Cairo Conference?

(Mr Hain) No specific date but next month was the period given to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr Wilshire

58. Minister, would you agree that there are human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe at the moment?

(Mr Hain) I thought that was pretty evident.

59. Do you agree that there is an incitement to racial hatred taking place?

(Mr Hain) In respect of the way that white peaceful demonstrators in the peaceful march through Harare a few weeks ago were deliberately targeted by supporters of the ruling party, I think, yes. There are clear instances of racist attacks. In respect of white farmers being targeted and the general climate that many whites in Zimbabwe now feel, obviously the situation is deteriorating.

60. Would you agree that what we are now seeing is the beginnings of ethnic cleansing?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to use that phrase. This phrase has been used in an inflammatory way by the Opposition. I think we should take this opportunity, if I may say so, to adopt a measured response. To compare what is happening in Zimbabwe with what happened in Kosovo I would have thought was ludicrous. It does not make it any more acceptable to find the lawlessness and violence and now deaths of all sorts of people. I do not think the targeting of the predominantly black (though multi-racial) Opposition, with the whole succession of killings, with up to 100 people violently attacked, I do not think you can describe that as ethnic cleansing because it is often black on black, but it is equally serious.

61. Chairman, I would just observe that it was not me who mentioned Kosovo, it was the Minister. The point I want to put to the Minister is this: that if we do have human rights abuses taking place, if we do have incitements to racial hatred—whether or not we have ethnic cleansing beginning is clearly a matter on which we do not agree—but is your thesis that, given those things are taking place in Zimbabwe, what we need are robust words? Should the world community just simply talk about this, or is it not the time when the world community does something about it?

(Mr Hain) First of all, I do not see how you can describe the cleaning-out of black farm workers on the farm of the white farmer who was recently killed as being ethnic cleansing. I cannot see how you describe it as that. I think we should get away from inflammatory rhetoric like that. As for robust words, Mr Rowlands referred to the fact that I have been very robust. Some people have said I have been too robust. I have felt it my responsibility to give a very clear message. I do agree with you, Mr Wilshire, that the international community does need to take its own responsibilities seriously, which is exactly why we approached all of the different international fora in the way that I described.

62. You say you agree with me. I certainly agree with you in that we should not see this as a unilateral United Kingdom versus Zimbabwe issue. What I do believe is that we should see it as a world issue for taking action. You said at the beginning of your evidence that you were reluctant to take about the UN role in this. Notwithstanding that reluctance, can I press you to say why you are reluctant to? Is there not a role for the UN to take action?

(Mr Hain) There may well be. I am not reluctant to discuss the UN, in fact I said it had been discussed in New York. There is a progression to these matters. If an African solution can be found to this African problem that would be the best solution.

63. What suggestions have we put to the United Nations about action that the United Nations could take?

(Mr Hain) I do not want to go into detailed discussion about what we are saying through private diplomacy. What we need to achieve is a successful resolution of this crisis?

64. Have you or have you not proposed to the United Nations that they should take some action?

(Mr Hain) At this stage we have concentrated on doing what I have described, which is approaching the Commonwealth, which is approaching the organisation for African unity, neighbouring African States and one of the most powerful African leaders, President Slavasinger. That has been our priority. The question of the United Nations involvement may well come at a later stage. What we are interested in is effective action, not gestures.

65. With respect, that is not answering the question that I asked. The question that I asked was, "Has the British Government put any proposals to the United Nations for them to take action?"

(Mr Hain) No, we have not asked the United Nations to take action. We have had discussions with our colleagues in the United Nations. If you are interested in serious diplomacy as opposed to gestures these things have to be approached in a measured and a progressive fashion.

66. Can I ask you what contact you have had with the various international financial bodies with a view to suggesting that they take action?

(Mr Hain) Effectively President Mugabe has imposed negative sanctions on himself by the inability of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to actually support Zimbabwe in the way that, other things being equal, and the different policies we would all like them to do. We have not needed to talk to the IMF or any other international financial institution about action against Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe has prevented itself from receiving support from us.

67. Whilst that is true it must be blindingly obvious to everybody concerned that if there is to be a solution to the problems in Zimbabwe at some stage it will require the involvement of the IMF and others. Therefore, would it not be sensible to encourage world financial institutions to make it crystal clear that they too will require change before they are prepared to join in any sort of discussion?

(Mr Hain) With due respect, Mr Wilshire, that is exactly what I said. The IFIs have not been able to agree a programme of support they want to provide because the Government of Zimbabwe has been unable to change its policies. There have been calls, not from this Committee, I am pleased to say, for sanctions and other tough action of the kind that Mr Wilshire is alluding to. It is very significant that the leader of the opposition Morgan Tsvangirai has explicitly said he does not want sanctions. He does not want these kind of instant gestures which may seem as if Britain is taking some action but could well have a totally counter-productive effect, not least, on the people in Zimbabwe who are suffering terribly, as they are at the present time. If the Opposition takes that view I think we should all take heed of it.

68. You said in reply to my colleague, Sir David Madel, about the Commonwealth, if I understood you correctly, that if a country becomes a military dictatorship Commonwealth rules allow for its suspension, expulsion or whatever else it may decide. Did I hear you correctly when you said that there are no rules within the Commonwealth institutions that allow us to take action again human rights abuses. Is that what you were saying?

(Mr Hain) What I said was that the remit of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is the only body to act for the Commonwealth in between heads of government conferences—the last one was in Durban last November—only enable action to be taken in the terms of suspension. Gambia, for example, is still on the agenda of the CMAG. Cameroon was discussed at the meeting of CMAG in New York and Zimbabwe will be discussed, because Britain asked that it be so, at the next meeting. Can I also just briefly add, I was at a meeting of CMAG, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, and one of the leading voices on behalf of the British Government in early October that urged a widening of the remit of CMAG precisely to address the wider issues raised by the Harare declaration in terms of human rights abuses, bad governance and so on. That was agreed by CMAG but it was put off at the Durban CHOGM meeting for consideration by a high level group, which is chaired by South Africa and has to report back to the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting.

69. The Commonwealth can suspend Zimbabwe if it chooses to?

(Lord MacDonald) No. Not unless there is a military coup.

Chairman

70. The precedents are for a military coup. There is no precedent for any human rights matters being the basis for suspension?

(Mr Hain) There is a precedent for them being addressed, as I have said in respect of the Gambia and Cameroon, but there is not a precedent for suspension. The rules do not permit it.

Mr Wilshire

71. Can I be clear on that, is it precedent for it or is the Minister saying that the rules technically do not allow it. I think that is a very important distinction.

(Mr Hain) Unless there was a consensus amongst the heads of government of the Commonwealth—they do not have to formally meet—that action could be taken.

Chairman

72. There is no chance of African colleagues agreeing to such a suspension in the case of Zimbabwe?

(Mr Hain) No, I do not think there is, that is the plain statement of fact.

Chairman: I would like to move on to citizenship. Mr Mackinlay.

Mr Mackinlay

73. I would like to ask you about a very narrow area, Minister, arithmetically mainly, presumably the people who live in Zimbabwe, to whom we owe obligations, there is like a ranking order, there are people who are demonstrably British citizens. I guess, perhaps you might amplify on that, there might be some who are Zimbabwean citizens but have relinquished United Kingdom citizenship, and then there might be others. I wonder if you can give us some amplification on what you see as the numbers, bearing in mind, I think, even emanating from British Government circles there is a bit of ambiguity. There is talk about 20,000 British nationals and then we have also heard the figure 15,000. We have obligations to everyone in terms of human justice and for humanitarian reasons, I accept that. There must be a ranking order for priority?

(Mr Hain) I am happy to the clarify the situation.

Chairman

74. Please.

(Mr Hain) I think the Foreign Affairs Committee received in confidence a document describing some of these matters. As of the end of last week there were 14,500 registered British nationals, but this figure is constantly being updated. Overwhelmingly these are Zimbabwean citizens who can, however, claim British passports and register as British nationals either directly themselves or through their parents or grandparents.

75. Would have unrestricted right of access to the United Kingdom?

(Mr Hain) If you are a British passport holder that is clearly the case.

Mr Mackinlay

76. Do you think there is also a group amongst the Africans, and there is probably a small minority of Asian people there, who are equally entitled but it probably has not been activated or they are unaware of their rights on a comparable basis to the last group you referred to?

(Mr Hain) I would not want to speculate or guess on what the total is. I am trying to be as helpful as I can be. Not all of the 14,500 registered British nationals that I referred to are white.

77. No.

(Mr Hain) I do not think we should see this as a white/black issue. In fact some of the media coverage has focused too much on this recently. More black citizens have been killed as a result of this lawlessness than whites.

78. I agree with you. You probably missed my point, it seems to me that the group you referred to, which people who are Zimbabwean citizens , who have a right to a British passport from the point of view of London, you say that is rising 14,500, many of them are not white, many are African, and so on, I wonder if that could grow considerably? There must be some assessment of what the maximum number would be, is there not?

(Mr Hain) I do want to—

79. We must have these records back from pre-1981?

(Mr Hain) We think there is up to 20,000 people in Zimbabwe who may qualify. We cannot be exactly sure. This is an issue that goes back generations. This enables me to briefly make this point, these are people who want to stay in Zimbabwe, they want to continue to farm the land, to contribute to the country. It is their country, Britain is not their country. I think it is important we keep a focus on that. All of our diplomacy and all of the, I hope, pronouncements and statements of this Committee ultimately will bear in mind that it is in the interests of those people to stay in Zimbabwe and contribute to its future.

Chairman

80. It is the interests of Zimbabwe to have their skills.

(Mr Hain) It is very much in the interests of Zimbabwe to have their skills. One of the most disturbing and saddening features of the current farm invasions is that those skills are not being able to be deployed, as a result of which the country is being hurt.

Mr Rowlands

81. May I seek clarification on these numbers, 14,500 are registered as British nationals with the High Commission and therefore either have British passports or would be issued with them on request; that is right?

(Mr Hain) That is right.

82. You think there may be another 5,500 who may qualify as well, if you talk about the figure of 20,000?

(Mr Hain) Yes, that is our best estimate.

83. British citizenship is very clearly and narrowly defined?

(Mr Hain) Indeed. You cannot be certain until an individual presents him or herself at the High Commission and that can be established.

84. Of those 14,500 who registered how many are farmers as opposed to people who lived in what was Rhodesia, and now Zimbabwe, retired pensioners, ex-public service workers and others, who may not be directly effected by the present conflict?

(Mr Hain) I do not have figures on that. I am happy to establish those figures, if I am able to, and provide them to the Committee in writing.

85. It would important to clarify, would it not, between those who by the terrible circumstances of the last few weeks may be forced to leave as opposed to those who may feel they are forced because they lived not as farmers but as citizens in Zimbabwe.

(Mr Hain) Yes, indeed. Although I respect your focus on this problem, because it could ultimately be an issue for Britain, I want to stress that everything that is said or done at the present time must concentrate on the rights of those people to stay in Zimbabwe, as they wish to do.

86. One further clarification on the issue of citizenship, is it the case that any Commonwealth citizen who has a parent born in the United Kingdom has the right to a vote in the United Kingdom?

(Mr Hain) The detail of those matters is a matter obviously for the Home Office. Can I make one other point, I will happily return to it, if you wish, in some cases many of these individuals will go to other countries. Some have already gone to South Africa, some of their children have gone to the South Africa. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also countries that they tend to move to. I do not think you should anticipate what may happen.

87. You have repeatedly said throughout your evidence this morning that you wanted a measured response. You also, I think, put a lot of emphasise on this forthcoming delegation. Do you have any reason to believe that this forthcoming delegation will have any sense of authority and will have to come to any understanding about these issues? We have been trying all morning to discover whether there is any influences on President Mugabe to alter the main policy. You described you tried to utilise the President of Nigeria, neighbouring states, the Commonwealth and OANU. If this delegation in coming do you have any reason to believe it will come with any sense of authority or come to any kind of understanding that could actually bring the immediate crisis to an end if there is some sort of understanding reached between yourselves and this delegation?

(Mr Hain) At a time when people are being killed and many are being beaten up and violence and lawlessness is taking place it is the duty of British ministers to explore every option and to look for and hope for success rather than anticipate failure. I hope it will be possible for our discussions with that delegation to be productive. I hope that the influences being brought to bear on Zimbabwe in the region, through the Commonwealth, through the organisation for African unity and quite possibly in the end through the United Nations will also be productive. I think it is our duty to explore every opportunity that we have.

88. Nobody is denying that. You raised a lot of hope and you placed considerable emphasise on the importance of this delegation, I wonder how much hope we should take from it? This delegation is coming, it has been coming for weeks and during this "coming for weeks" there has been violence, there has been murder and there has been burning.

(Mr Hain) We have been informed by the High Commission that the Foreign Minister Dr Mudenge will be leading the delegation. Mr Nkomo will be also be on it, the Minister for Local Government and National Housing and Dr Shamuyaria, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Those are fairly senior ministers. Obviously we hope they will have the authority to, as I same sure they will, to talk to us.

89. May I suggest we indicate that this delegation should come as speedily as possible now?

(Mr Hain) We do want it to come as speedily as possible. The Foreign Secretary is in India at the present time and we are hoping a convenient time can be made as soon as possible, hopefully next week.

90. You rightly rejected the concept of sanctions of the kind that have been suggested. There is, indeed, one area where we should indicate very clearly that at this moment in time we have no intention of continuing with any form of arms licensing to Zimbabwe. I know we will have an opportunity to cross-examine you in much closer detail within the next fortnight or so on arms licensing policy, however can I seek clarification from you that there are no standard licences being issued? They were issued in February, after the statement about tightening up. Could you, please, just clarify the position of the Government towards any Hawks spares at this moment in time?

(Mr Hain) The Hawk spares, as I understand it, have been used for a couple of Hawk aircrafts, which are serviceable in the Congo, the Hawk spares have gone out. We have had no request for new Hawk spares and I think that if there were to be any exports or application for them they would be very seriously considered in light of the current situation and, of course, in the light of the Congo war. Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo is reportedly costing the country $1 million a day and is bleeding its budget dry. We have a very clear policy, which will apply to Zimbabwe as to other countries, particularly in the current delicate situation with the crisis in Zimbabwe, that we will not supply any arms which could be used for either external aggression or internal repression.

91. Those Hawk spares went to Hawks that are flying in the Congo?

(Mr Hain) Indeed.

92. That conflicted with the criteria.

(Mr Hain) That was in honour of an existing contract for planes that were supplied by the previous Government in the early 1980s and the early 1990s. The present situation in Zimbabwe and obviously the crisis in Zimbabwe will have to be taken into account in any fresh consideration. There are none that I am aware of that are coming in at the moment in terms of an export licence application.

Mr Chidgey

93. Just to reinforce the last point, if I can, is it not the case, Minister, that the Government's decision on 24th February to grant those seven Standard Individual Export Licences for the export of Hawk spares does that not conflict with the Prime Minister's claim, made over a month ago, that the Government was tightening up its policy on the export licences for the countries intervening in the conflict in the DRC?

(Mr Hain) I do not think so. I think it was about a few spares for Hawk aircrafts. We do not know whether the spares were actually used for the two planes in the Congo. I do not think that conflicts at all with a very clear statement about what will be the policy in the future in this respect.

94. We talked about the policy that was set out by the Prime Minister and it seems to me that decisions taken subsequent to that were against what the Prime Minister told us the policy was. What we do in the future is another issue. I think it is important to recognise that we did not get it right in this one so we can get it right in the future.

(Mr Hain) You will beware that the Prime Minister actually made the announcements on both occasions, so that is where it rests.

Dr Godman

95. You mentioned holding discussions with opposition politicians, for example Morgan Tsvangirai who leads what might be described as a heterogenous opposition, brought together only in regard to its opposition to the ZANU/PF and President Mugabe. What about cabinet colleagues of Mr Mugabe? What about Eddison Zvobgo, is it not the case that he is attempting to revitalise Zambea and that he might be amenable to discussing in a constructive way socially just land reform i.e. radical changes in the ownership and the tenure of the land?

(Mr Hain) I appreciate your questions, Dr Godman, but I do not want to speculate on the individual members of the ZANU/PF party, however high they are, but there is considerable dissent within ZANU/PF, which is unusual given its history. I know there are progressive voices who well understand what needs to be done, who do not agree with the present policy of the President and Government and who would wish to see a much more constructive approach.

96. I do not want to ask you difficult questions.

(Mr Hain) That is your job, is not it?

97. Well, questions that might cause you embarrassment in your continuing discussions. Is it not the case that Eddison Zvobgo and his colleagues are pretty close to Cyril Ramuposa of the ANC and could not a combination of such individuals, such as Mr Zvobgo and Mr Ramuposa play an influential mediating constraining role in combination where the President and his supporters are concerned.

(Mr Hain) I think it is important that all good friends of Zimbabwe come to its aid at the present time, as we are attempting to do. I respect your question and your knowledge of the situation. I do not deny your right to ask it in a helpful way but I do not want to speculate on individual members of the party.

98. Let us talk about parties, the ANC has been fairly subdued in terms of, if you like, intervening in a constructive way in Zimbabwe, is that not the case?

(Mr Hain) The ANC has enjoyed close relations with the ruling party. Can I say too that many ZANU/PF MPs are actually now standing as independents. Some ministers find themselves in a situation where they are not being automatically chosen any more, so there is obviously a change on the way.

99. The South African Government, the President and prominent members of the ANC could play a very helpful role in helping to sort things out?

(Mr Hain) I assume that is why President Mbeki is due to visit Harare soon.

Chairman

100. Escom is supplying electricity at a great loss to Zimbabwe.

(Mr Hain) Indeed. I met the Chairman of Eskom only yesterday and he was very exercised about this. I think Mozambique is in a similar predicament. Can I stress too, particularly in response to Dr Godman's constructive points, that the Southern Africa Development Community—whose Chairman is President Chissano, with whom the Foreign Secretary has discussed this matter, as I have with the Mozambique Foreign Minister, Leonardo Simao -are equally concerned. I think that SADC clearly has a role to play their.

Dr Godman

101. With regard to World Bank's structural adjustment programme, it did not work too well in Zambia and it is important we do not have that kind of clumsy international intervention in Zimbabwe, would you agree?

(Mr Hain) I very much agree. I think lessons have been learned from the Zambian experience.

102. The World Bank in future will not be as clumsy as it was in Zambia.

(Mr Hain) I hope that the World Bank is never clumsy.

Dr Godman: Very clumsy.

Sir Peter Emery

103. I do not think we can hold you responsible for the World Bank. May I clear up two points, there has been a number of questions about land resettlement. I think it would be useful to get on record that the British Government has, since independence, actually paid a considerable amount of money to Zimbabwe for land resettlement schemes. Can you tell the Committee how much?

(Mr Hain) £44 million. Most of it in the 1980s.

104. We have made a major contribution.

(Mr Hain) Sir Peter, I agree. It not as if we have done nothing and it is not as if we do not want to do anything. It is the misguided policies which have blocked not just us but now the Americans and others from contributing to the solution to this matter.

105. I wanted to get it on record because some people tried to suggest we have done nothing but that is not the case.

(Mr Hain) I am grateful.

106. I return, again, to the questions that I put to you. You did say that we should explore every opportunity to influence Mugabe. I think we have all agreed that the opportunity is greatest coming from Africans. One of the leading Africans is Kofi Annan from Ghana, respected throughout the world—we have been to many other areas Kosovo, Russia and all of these things—I would have thought he was eminently suitable to try and bring influence on Mugabe, who has particular relationships with Ghana. His first wife was Ghanaian and he worked in Ghana. Therefore there is a relationship. Surely we ought to be pressing Kofi Annan and the United Nations to look at every opportunity to influence this man. I am surprised that you have been reticent, or it appears the Government has been reticent, to bring that about immediately.

(Mr Hain) We are not reticent, Sir Peter, we are just concerned that our international diplomacy on this matter is a consistent and a progressive one. I am sure Kofi Annan is deeply concerned about this situation. I am not trying to be defensive or reticent, I am simply trying to signal that these matter are best pursued through private diplomacy.

107. Yes.

(Mr Hain) It may be frustrating but then—

108. I do not wish to complicate the situation but if you are trying to tell me that, perhaps, my wishes are being complied with privately, is that what you are suggesting?

(Mr Hain) I am not trying to tell you anything. I know are you trying to ask me.

Sir David Madel

109. Is your private diplomacy energetic?

(Mr Hain) It is extremely energetic, particularly that of the Foreign Secretary. Even in the last few days while he has been in India he has been constantly on the telephone to pursue international diplomacy.

Chairman

110. One final point about the elections, hopefully free and fair. We understand from you this morning that the speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament has said they would welcome election monitors. Are we, as a Government, ready to respond positively if there were such opportunities?

(Mr Hain) Yes, indeed, we clearly are. This is the absolute priority at the present time. When you have had one hundred members of the Opposition attacked and some ten killed in the last few weeks this is a very, very serious situation. I think this is probably the most critical time in Zimbabwe's short history, arguably even in the whole of the country's history, even when it was under the label of Rhodesia, and it is vital that these elections are pretty fair.

111. Can I thank you and your colleague very much. Alas, we have heard further evidence of the tragedy of Zimbabwe today. It is a friendly country, a country in decay and it has been a helpful dialogue between the Committee and yourselves today.

(Mr Hain) I am very grateful for your interest, Mr Chairman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------