British Foreign Affairs Portfolio Committees Visit

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 February 2004
BRITISH FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEES VISIT

Chairperson: Dr Z Jordan (ANC)

Documents handed out:
None

SUMMARY
As suggested by the British Committee, the Committees discussed conflicts in Zimbabwe and Iraq. The Chairperson explained that South Africa saw the land issue and the high degree of polarisation in Zimbabwean society as the main problem, while Britain emphasised the human rights issue. Members of both the DA and the IFP felt that South Africa had not adopted the right policy regarding the problem. Together with the British Committee, they felt that South Africa should have done more than just hoping that the two main Zimbabwean political parties would one day talk to each other. The British Committee was divided on whether it was necessary for the war in Iraq to have taken place. Some members of the SA Committee felt that Britain and America were to blame for some of the conflicts unfolding around the world.

MINUTES
The Chairperson of the British Committee asked the South African Committee to advise them on how to deal with the issues of the war in Iraq and the situation in Zimbabwe. His Committee had published three reports on the situation in Zimbabwe. Britain has enormous problems in trying to get a balanced relationship because of its colonial past and that anything Britain did would be used by the ZANU PF against Britain. The British government was concerned about the enormous problems of human rights abuse, suffering of people and about the number of refugees fleeing to South Africa and Britain. He asked the SA Committee to advise on the best route to finding a solution.

Dr Jordan said that there are differences of opinions amongst SA on the Zimbabwe issue. The government has its view and that the opposition parties had a completely opposite view. The government approached the matter by dividing the issues at play, such as human rights problems, the land issue and the high degree of polarisation in Zimbabwean society. The UK government has given the human rights issues a higher profile whereas the SA government had concentrated on the land and polarisation issues. The SA government was concentrating on how to bring the two political sides together to work at solution jointly and had tried to engage both sides but progress was extremely slow.

Dr C Eglin (DA) said that he did not think that there was any difference of opinion about what was happening in Zimbabwe. The only difference was about whether the SA government was reacting appropriately. The situation was made difficult by the fact that the only strong criticism came from European countries, and not from African Commonwealth countries. The racial component of this dispute exacerbated the matter. President Mbeki was the President of the AU that was committed to democracy, human rights, rule of law and good governance. The AU encouraged various sanction to be applied should a country be in defect. The SADC protocols spelled out the same concepts. Zimbabwe was also a member of NEPAD. The African leadership led by South Africa has not taken steps, either by moral or direct persuasion to try get the Zimbabwean regime to comply with codes of behaviour by which all members were collectively bound. Five years ago, one could have argued that Zimbabwe was one a model of democratic government in Southern Africa. A total retrogression was taking place and very liitle was being done.

Dr Eglin said that another fundamental difference arose if the government believed that President Mugabe had won a free and fair election. The Commonwealth and the SADC Parliamentary Forum had found that they were not free and fair. The South Africa mission had not said they were fair, but they were legitimate.

Dr Eglin believed that the South Africa government should have made it clear that it was opposed to the way the country was being governed and that Africa should have taken collective action to say that such behaviour was damaging and undermined the protocols to which they were all committed.

An IFP Member said his party believed the silent diplomacy approach had not been successful. The government should have done more. South Africa supplies power and other things to Zimbabwe and perhaps should have used this to force the government to change its attitude.

A member of the British Committee drew the conclusion that much debate about policies towards Zimbabwe was being conducted by the UK, SA and other governments on the basis that one policy should be followed by all. This was a mistaken belief and that there was legitimate room for different policies to be followed by different countries. He said that the situation in Zimbabwe greatly impacted on South Africa as large numbers of Zimbabwean migrants posed the threat of destabilising the country and economic difficulties. South Africa was in a special position to exercise a greater degree of influence than any other country. The Harare Declaration, a baseline human rights document that provided for the respect of the rule of law, multiparty democracy and human rights, could be used to ensure there were changes in Zimbabwe.

Mr Mokoena (ANC) agreed that if there was destabilisation in Zimbabwe, South Africa would be affected. Britain had the same problem with regard to Northern Ireland. South Africa should be praised in that it had prevented a bloodbath in Zimbabwe. He then asked the British Committee if, in their oversight role, they had played any part in the decision to go to war against Iraq.

A member of the British Committee said that it was not in anyone's interest to let the situation in Zimbabwe to deteriorate any further. Everyone should work together in partnership for the benefit of the poor people of Zimbabwe. With regards to the Iraq issue, the member said that he did not accept the argument that Britain was under direct threat from Iraq. He believed that Britain and America should not have gone to war without the UN.

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) said that she was surprised that the UK government had decided to go to war on the basis of flimsy intelligent reports. The UK had supported Iraq with different kinds of armaments and possibly weapons of mass destruction during the war against Iran. The USA had supported the Taliban and thereby had 'promoted' Osama Bin Laden. Both the US and British governments had supported autocratic rulers in the Middle East and were causing all sorts of problems in the guise of bringing democracy. She asked if the UK government's foreign policy was serious about peace and stability in the Middle East. She also asked for comment on whether multilateral institutions like the UN should be reformed or disregarded.

A member of the British committee doubted if the USA could have been stopped from going to war against Iraq. There was a need to reform the UN and bring back belief in its institutions if the world was live by the rule of law. He had voted against the war and did not the pre-emptive self-defence principle was sustainable in international law. If one applied it to, for instance Japan and North Korea, one wondered what would happen. He had always believed that the weapons were there but were never a threat to the UK.

With regard to the Middle East conflicts, the (above) member said that one could not allow the situation there to continue. Regimes in the Middle East had to recognise that Israel also had a right to exist. This issue had raised incredible passion in the British parliament. It was of utmost importance to stop the parties from killing each other. He urged South Africa to use all influence in the UN to push for harder work to find a solution. He hoped that the UN would adopt the Geneva Accord as the route to peace rather than the failed highway.

Mr E Sigwela (ANC) said that with regard to the land question in Zimbabwe, the British government had reneged on its Lancaster House agreement to make funds available to acquire land for the purposes of redistribution. The Zimbabwean government had been forced to act by its own people. The British government had played a role in bringing about the rigidity of attitudes of political parties in Zimbabwe. It was shameful and wrong for the British Prime Minister to take sides and publicly choose one party instead of trying to neutralise the situation. He was surprised that South Africa was being blamed for not doing anything about the issue.

A member of the British Committee said that Britain was not saying that South Africa was not doing anything. He said that the feeling was that South Africa could do more given its proximity to Zimbabwe and the relationship between the Presidents of the two countries.

The meeting was adjourned.