Consul-General on Zimbabwean Situation: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 January 2003
CONSUL-GENERAL ON SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Dr Z P JORDAN

SUMMARY
Zimbabwean Consul-General addressed the Committee on the internal situation in his country. He explained that the land reform program, which his government had embarked upon, was not the cause of the economic problems, but rather the withholding of balance of payments by Western powers. He admitted that there had been some problems but that generally the program had succeeded. He also castigated the media for incorrect reporting on the situation in his country.

MINUTES
Mr. Godfrey Dzvairo, Zimbabwean Consul-General, said that there had been lots of lies and misinformation which had muddied the true situation in the country. He said that this was not an exaggeration and that the country had a constitutionally elected government and was not a rogue state. He added that many countries had shown double standards in their attitude to Zimbabwe.

He said that Zimbabwe had made a bold step to bring colonialism to its conclusion for which they were being deserted. This they had done by instituting their land reform program in which they had reversed the situation where one percent of the population possessed 70% of the land. He reiterated that this program was irreversible. He explained that 300 families had been resettled according to the A1 plan and that 50 000 families had been resettled according to the A2 plan. He admitted that there had been some problems such as equipment and fertilisers. He made it clear to the committee that the food crisis was not due to the land reform program, but rather due to the drought factor alone. The food aid was being distributed by non-governmental organisations not through government. There was no discrimination along party lines, the way food was distributed. He pointed out that there continued to be a free press and multi party democracy in Zimbabwe.

In referring to Zimbabwe's relationship with South Africa, he said that the two countries were linked by a common destiny and that South Africa had been a sober and constructive friend. Zimbabwe was proud to be associated with South Africa and had a firm belief in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and would co-operate with all countries. He added that as a member of the African Union (AU), Zimbabwe would relate to the international community for the well-being of all the people.

Discussion
Ms. F Hajaij (ANC) requested an update on the land reform program and to what extent Zimbabwe had trade with the United States and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dzvairo reminded members about the agreement made at Lancaster House regarding land restitution. He explained how the United Kingdom had offered to pay the commercial farmers for their farms. For ten years this issue was not addressed as there had been unwillingness on the part of the United Kingdom and the farmers. There was a difference between South Africa and Zimbabwe since in Zimbabwe there was lots of land that was not being used. Referring to trade, he said that the UK was the largest trade partner after South Africa and continues to be so. It was part of the double standards where the UK and others criticised the Zimbabwean government yet continued to trade because they were benefiting. He added that there was not much new investment.

Mr. van Jaarsveld (NNP) referred to the stability which Mr. Dzvairo referred and asked why the mayor of Harare could not guarantee the safety of the visiting cricket players who had come for the World Cup. Mr. Dzvairo replied that, they had a security force like any other country, which saw that citizens and visitors were safe. He added that a task force was established to see to safety during the Cricket World Cup. He added that the Zimbabwean government was aware that certain organisations had received 39 000 pounds from the UK to stage demonstrations and disrupt the World Cup.

Mr. C Eglin (DA) appealed to the chairperson to invite Zimbabwean opposition members as well to the committee in future. He asked Mr. Dzvairo if Zimbabwe was part of the peer review system as part of NEPAD. He also reminded the Consul-General he did not only rely on reports from the media, but from friends as well and therefore there was concern at the abuse of power and the silencing of dissent. Mr. Dzvairo referred to the issue about blaming and said that the Zimbabwean government was constantly told that they were not taking responsibility for the situation in the country. He reminded members that five years ago, there was responsible democracy in the country. He added that the suffering was not self-inflicted but that it was caused by the withholding of balance of payments by the US and the UK. He added that the drought was largely to blame yet the government was blamed. He also added that Zimbabwe, as a member of the AU, would subscribe to peer review as part of NEPAD. Referring to human rights abuses, he added that it was a well known fact that the Westminster Foundation was supporting the opposition. He added that journalists were also campaigning for the opposition. The government was there to maintain law and order and therefore had made some arrests. He made it clear that there was freedom of the press, but that some journalists were abusing their freedom. Referring further to the registration of journalists he added that there was nothing wrong with asking journalists the register. There was a problem with some people who came to Zimbabwe purporting to be journalists and some BBC reporters who entered the country as tourists. He added that there was a deliberate attempt to discredit the government by these journalists.

Dr. P Mulder (Freedom Front) asked if Zimbabwe would allow an independent media to visit the country on a fact finding mission. Mr. Dzvairo replied that they had nothing to hide and that a media group would be welcome.

Mr. J Seremane (DA) also reminded Mr. Dzvairo that it was not only the press which gave information but also friends and family. He stated that nobody was against the land reform program, but that the method was a problem. He inquired about the young militia who were committing acts of violence in the country. Mr. Dzvairo commented that he was glad to hear that there was support for the principle of land reform. Addressing the problem of the young militia, Mr. Dzvairo stated that this was a misnomer as these young people were part of the national service for youth which was established for unemployed youth. He added that from the end of 2003, all youth would have to do national service. He did admit that some of the youth were overzealous and had to be refined.

Ms. S Rajbally (Minority Front) asked what alternative strategies were planned to cope with the drought. She enquired whether the food in the food program was reaching the people. Mr. Dzvairo replied that there were plans to build more dams and irrigate crops. It was also planned to grow crops in winter. He explained that the World Food Program director had praised the system which was in place to distribute food. He pointed out that in rural areas, the World Food Program was totally responsible and that the government was not involved at all.

Ms. F Mohamed (ANC) asked what efforts were being made to see that NEPAD was being implemented. She enquired if the natural resources of the country was exhausted and whether there was a brain drain taking place. Mr. Dzvairo said that Zimbabwe had embraced the ideas of the AU and NEPAD and added that this will help Africa to come into its own. The Zimbabwean government had also been engaging the business community concerning this. He admitted that a brain drain was taking place of not only professional people but also artisans.

Mr. Botha (DA) inquired why land was being given to government officials. He asked if there were any discussions between the South African authorities concerning land that had once belonged to South African farmers. Mr. Dzvairo referred to the 50 000 people who had been resettled and said that these were now the new Zimbabwean commercial farmers. He added that the A1 scheme had been more successful than the A2 scheme. He stated that peasant farmers were doing well. The A2 farmers were less successful as they had a shortage of implements, seeds and fertiliser. He claimed that some equipment was sabotaged by the white farmers. He added however that some whites were co-operating. He continued to explain that the South African farmers were paid for the infrastructure on the farms but not for the land itself. He could not comment on dialogue between South African and Zimbabwean authorities about this. He confirmed that some farms of some foreigners were returned following bilateral agreements with their countries for example with the Italian government. This was done on condition that investment came into the country. He went on to explain that there had been an explosion of NGOs in Zimbabwe which was concerned about human rights. He said that these NGOs gave lots of false information. He reminded members that the African Commission on Human Rights had given a positive report on the country.

Referring to the war veterans Mr. Dzvairo stated that for ten years, the issue of land was not addressed and that the farmers had acted in bad faith. At a land conference which was held in 1998 the EU and other international players had been present but the UK had decided not to attend. He said that a blueprint had been put forward which was constructive but no action was forthcoming. For this reason, the people had decided to take the land by force. The policy now was that one person would be allowed to own one farm.

Mr. M Ramgobin (ANC) remarked that the situation in South Africa was not all that different and asked what efforts was made to show the international community that there was double standards by many of the Western powers. Mr. Dzvairo replied that they had tried to present their case to the international community with some degree of success. He remarked that the EU was now reconsidering its position.

Ms. Botha (DA) stated that 80% of the land was sold on the open market after independence and was not gained illegally, yet it was taken from farmers. She asked if the agreement with South Africa to buy land was still in place. Mr. Dzvairo confirmed that the land was sold, but reminded members that the original owners had not bought the land and it was their responsibility to compensate the farmers not the governments. He said that there was no bilateral agreement with South Africa but that negotiations with white South African farmers, in Zimbabwe, were in progress.

Mr. D Sithole (ANC) asked what the way forward would be, if the opposition would be involved and what the role of civil society would be. Mr. Dzvairo explained that there was a tripartite forum which involved government, business and trade unions which would formulate a policy for the way forward. He agreed that the role of the opposition was important, but felt that they were not acting in good faith and was calling for violence. Civil society had a place, but they were all denouncing the government.

Mr. E Sigwela (ANC) inquired if there was any capacity building program linked to the land reform program and on what basis ownership of land was given. He asked if they leased the land or whether it was a freehold system. Mr. Dzvairo explained that the land was given on a leasehold basis for 35 years. It was however possible to transfer it offspring or to a spouse. The government holds the lease and underwrites any money borrowed by farmers. He added that the ministry of agriculture was training A1 and A2 farmers. Preference was given to agricultural students. He also stated that the government was supporting the farmers by supplying tractors, seeds and fertilisers.

Meeting was adjourned.