Current Political Situation in Zimbabwe: briefing by Deputy Minister

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
20 February 2002
CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE: BRIEFING BY DEPUTY MINISTER

Acting Chairperson: D J Sithole (ANC)

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs briefed the committee on the current political situation in Zimbabwe. He stressed that there were five main points to be borne in mind by all concerned with the situation in Zimbabwe. The most important of these was that Zimbabwe was an integral part of the Southern African region and could not be isolated by her neighbours. It was important all concerned to help Zimbabwe, ensure that the forthcoming elections were free and fair and to help it rebuild its economy after the elections. The first wave of South African observers had been sent to Zimbabwe and the Deputy Minister had no doubt that their report would be accurate, honest and transparent.

MINUTES
Acting Chairperson, Mr D J Sithole, began by stating that he would be chairing the meeting in the absence of Mr Ebrahim. He welcomed Deputy Minister Pahad and invited him to begin his briefing.

Briefing
The Deputy Minister , Mr A Pahad, began by listing the five basic propositions that everybody (including South Africa, the AU, the EU, and all other countries and institutions) could agree on. The first of these propositions was that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state.

The second was that the elections in Zimbabwe would have an important effect that would impact on the other states in the region. South Africa and Zimbabwe were tied in many ways, from trade and the economy to language and culture. He stressed that Southern Africa would not abandon the people of Zimbabwe. South Africa would do all it could to help win the battle for democracy in Zimbabwe and it was a battle to be fought by all South African's regardless of race or class.

The third proposition was that Zimbabwe must be given the right to free and fair elections. The SADC had welcomed the assurances given by President Robert Mugabe to establish free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. Amongst other things, he promised that journalists would be allowed into the country and the judiciary would maintain its independence and the rule of law. In essence, he had made a specific commitment to the SADC. The SADC had however criticised the role played by the armed forces of Zimbabwe in the elections.

The fourth point was that after the elections there would be a major crisis to face, regardless of who won the election. Post-elections, Zimbabwe would have to face immense political and economic challenges. This led to the fifth proposition that all the states and regional and international bodies concerned should work together to help Zimbabwe.

Mugabe had announced that certain countries, including South Africa, would be invited to send delegations to monitor the elections. Six countries, including the UK and Germany were explicitly precluded from sending observer delegations. Following this announcement, a meeting was held between all the various stakeholders in South Africa to discuss how South Africa could help implement the assurances made by Mugabe. It had been decided to send South African observers to Zimbabwe in three waves. The references and methods of work of the observers were available to the Committee but were too lengthy to go into. The list of South African observers was very impressive and was constituted from various fields of civil society. The observer reports were not to be taken lightly. The first delegation of observers had arrived in Zimbabwe on 15 February and were now distributed throughout Zimbabwe. Daily reports were being received by them and they were mandated to report issues impacting on the freedom and fairness of the elections to the relevant authorities. In additions, five MPs were going to Zimbabwe as part of the SADC forum while the OAU was still putting its delegation in place. Political parties in South Africa were also putting together their own delegations. In summary, South African involvement was as extensive as possible.

Most recently, following the expulsion of the head of the EU observer mission, an EU foreign ministries meeting in Brussels considered the elections in Zimbabwe to be crucial to Zimbabwe. As a result it was decided by the EU to implement sanctions and embargoes on Zimbabwe. The EU emphasised that this was not designed to harm the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe, and it foresaw a continued dialogue with Zimbabwe in the future. It was also decided to withdraw all EU observers from Zimbabwe. The Deputy Minister was not sure if this would affect the withdrawal of the individual observer missions from EU member-states. The US was also considering sanctions with regard to travel and finance.

The Deputy Minister had recently received a letter from the South African Editors Forum informing the South African government that members of the Forum had had their request for accreditation refused by the Zimbabwean government. The Foreign Affairs Ministry would take on the matter and report back to government and other structures.

The SADC's involvement in Zimbabwe in the last few years was not a new occurrence. The SADC summit process expressed the reality that countries in the region must strive to work together in the common neighbourhood. The Southern African countries could not walk away from each other or leave one country in isolation. It was impossible for one country in the region to succeed while another failed.

At this stage, two questions were important: how to ensure free and fair elections, and how to ensure that Zimbabwe could come through the crisis faced in the aftermath of the elections. Although the elections were creating an even greater polarisation in Zimbabwean society, it was important that Zimbabweans work together in this time.

Discussion
The Chair belatedly welcomed a Member of the UK parliament delegation who was sitting in on the meeting and opened the floor for questions.

Mr R Schoeman (ANC) said that the committee's view was that the situation in Zimbabwe was only deteriorating. He referred to a specific example that was symbolic of this deterioration, that of the attempt to prevent the South African media (and the media in general) from gaining access to Zimbabwe. Was the South African government making it clear to Mr Mugabe how outrageous his acts were, and could the Deputy Minister be more precise on the steps taken to show just how South Africa regards the situation.

Mr A Ainslie (ANC) remarked that after the election the problem would be helping the people of Zimbabwe get throught their crisis, however the focus at the moment should be on the election itself. With regard to the South African observer mission sent to Zimbabwe, did the South African government have guidelines with which to determine whether the elections were free and fair? Secondly, regarding the assurances made by president Mugabe regarding the fairness of the elections, what was South Africa, as a member of the SADC, doing to monitor these assurances and what action would they take should Mugabe fall short of these assurances? Thirdly, concerning the military situation, bearing in mind that Mugabe is the Commander in Chief of the Military, should he not be required to repudiate his leadership of the military?

An ANC member enquired if there was any special reason why the first team of South African observers had been sent before the others.

The Deputy Minister replied with regard to the letter from the Editors forum that he had already been in touch with the South African observer team and that the matter had been raised with the highest authority. When the results were returned, a statement would be made. Concerning the guidelines for determining whether free and fair elections had been held, a meeting had been held between government, the media and other stakeholders to discuss the terms of reference. These included whether the mission had access to polling sites and if they were able to travel to them, interaction with other observer missions, monitoring of media coverage, a determination whether the electoral rules were reliable and in place, ensuring that voters had sufficient information to make an informed choice and whether the counting of the results of the election were transparent. The observer mission was not to be taken lightly and there was no doubt that it would be honest and transparent. The Deputy Minister was disappointed with the EU's decision to withdraw all its observers from Zimbabwe. It was his opinion that the EU should have, if anything, sent in more observers to ensure the freedom and fairness of the elections.

On the question of military presence, the Deputy Minister said that various statements had been made by the MDC and their stance was somewhat uncertain. Mugabe was the head of the Military but this was not an unusual situation as many heads of states also controlled the military.

The reason for the departure of the first South African observer team was that it was the belief of the South African government that once they were allowed to send an observer mission, they should do so as quickly as possible. The government also hoped that parliament would also send their team as quickly as possible. Incidentally, all members of the observer mission were self-financed as the government did not want the impression to be created that they were state-financed. In addition, as polarisation was a problem in Zimbabwe, it was believed that the presence of so many observers would dampen, if not prevent, the occurrence of violence during the election.

Mr M Magazi (ANC) said that the latest reports on television from journalists in Zimbabwe was that preparations for the elections were proceeding well, however, judging from the present discussion, the House was generally of the opinion that the situation in Zimbabwe was deteriorating. Was this not pre-empting the elections and would it not be better to wait for the observer reports after the elections before coming to any negative conclusions.

An opposition member asked what criteria was being used by the observer mission to determine if the elections were free and fair. He had heard of a SADC handbook on this topic. Was the handbook part of a package distributed to the team? Has government reacted to allegations to the effect that the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe had plotted to have Mr Mugabe assassinated? Should reports from the observer mission be bad, would the matter then be taken up at governmental or SADC level?

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) stated that a CNN report on the previous night had implied that the South African and SADC observer missions were biased and useless. Although she felt that one should not be surprised at their bias, would this not then put added pressure to ensure that the results were free and fair? Concerning the observer missions, were they in touch with the government on a daily basis and if so, were there reports of specific problems?

Mr S Pheko (PAC) condemned the EU and the UK government in particular, for stepping in where other elections or crises in Africa were concerned. He felt that their action now could only be because of the land question and that Africa should reject efforts to be dictated to by other nations.

The Deputy Minister responded that the observer mission would not be using the SADC handbook, although they may be using elements of it, because it remained a draft handbook before parliament. Regarding the alleged assassination attempt, he said that the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe had admitted speaking to the person concerned but with so many accusations it was best not to lose focus at this time.

He said that the team had made reports of violence in particular areas. The members of the team were mandated to report these episodes to the relevant authorities, and in situations when they had not witnessed the episodes first-hand, to verify the incident before reporting it. It was the Deputy Minister's opinion that, regardless of any outside force, people would vote for whom they wanted to vote. The close results in the previous elections had shown that.

Mr P Jordan (ANC) said that the important thing at the moment was that the elections proceed in a free and fair manner. Observer missions were good at creating such an atmosphere. It was also important to think about the day after the election results were released. What would happen then? Did the Deputy Minister have any idea what the great powers - such as the EU, US and G8 would think, and was there any indication that whoever the winner was would be assisted?

Mr B Geldenhuys (NNP) asked if the observer mission would take events prior to the election into account before making their findings. Did the government have any plans concerning a potential large influx of Zimbabwean refugees? The SADC Chairperson had made statements saying that more pressure should be put on Mugabe, how would South Africa support this statement?

Mr Z Madasa (ACDP) remarked that there were reports that some MDC rallies were deemed to be unlawful because permission for them had not been granted timeously. Did the requirement for a permit to hold a rally apply to all parties, including ZanuPF?

The Deputy Minister replied that it was important to focus on the five basic points that he had mentioned earlier. The response of the South African government would be based on whether the elections were deemed to be free and fair. If they were not, then the results would not be supported. The president had nominated two judges to decide on the fairness of the electoral laws. Any questions regarding these would be taken up with the Electoral Commission.
Concerning the potential influx of refugees, Minister Lekota had said that the SANDF were monitoring the borders but that the reality was that South Africa's borders were quite porous and no amount of military could stop an influx of refugees. Measures should rather be taken to welcome them and ensure that the situation in Zimbabwe was such that they could return.
Regarding the statement made by the SADC chairperson, the Deputy Minister said that a meeting had been held with Mugabe to discuss issues of importance. It was hoped that the commitments made would be maintained.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) said that he was not bemused but angry at the selective morality of the EU. He agreed with the sentiments expressed by Mr Pheko and added the MDC seemed to have unequivocal right-wing support. He enquired as to the Deputy Minister's view of the collective punishment of Africa, as threatened by the EU, and its impact on NEPAD. Was Africa being "held at gunpoint"?

Mr P Mulder (FF) commented that no issues regarding the freedom and fairness of elections had been raised during the previous elections. Why was the situation different this time? In addition, this would be NEPAD's first test. A problem would arise if the elections were thought not to be free and fair. Perhaps South Africa, and Africa, should make their position clear in this respect.

Mr N Gogotya (ANC) raised the issue of smart sanctions. One of Cape Town's leading news papers had reported that the smart sanctions would only work if the accounts could be traced, however the EU had questioned whether or not these funds could be traced.

The Chair remarked that it appeared that some states had already decided on an appropriate outcome for the elections. In other words, the elections would not be deemed to have been free and fair unless a specific result prevailed. Does the government see this as a potential problem?

The Deputy Minister replied, concerning the issue of collective punishment, that NEPAD could not be held to ransom by one country or another. Development was necessary for African countries to operate effectively and NEPAD was the long-term answer to development.
He did not agree that the MDC was only supported by the right wing. The results of the first election proved this as the MDC received almost half of the votes.

The Deputy Minister was glad that Mr Mulder had referred to Africa's position. If the military in Zimbabwe acted to remove the elected government, there would be immediate recriminations by South Africa and the SADC. It was important to take this stand to prevent coups.
He was concerned by the issue of smart sanctions because they could not impact on the elections. Who would travel during that time and how could they freeze accounts when it was admitted that they did not know the location of the accounts. It was the Deputy Ministers opinion that these actions were just "muddying the waters". It would be best to take action after the elections.

He found it difficult to say whether a predetermined outcome for the elections had been made and thought it best to wait and see the response to the results.

Concerning the issue of anticipated problems, the Deputy Minister found it difficult to discuss as these would depend on the nature of the result, the army's reaction, whether the losing side would accept the result and the refugee problem, to name a few. It was important to work on the assumption that the worst case scenario would be avoided. Whoever inherited the country would have on his hands an economy on the verge of collapse and would require a lot of assistance. He hoped that after the elections there would be a Zimbabwean effort to find a Zimbabwean solution and that both parties would work together to find this solution.

The Chair thanked the Deputy Minister for briefing the Committee.

Meeting adjourned.