|
STRAW OPENS COMMONS DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE
Page Contents
Foreword
Plea on Behalf of Overseas British Pensioners
Commons debate on Zimbabwe with comment
BREAKING NEWS ! STRAW IMPOSES ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON BRITISH NATIONALS IN ZIMBABWE!
Read about it below.
Commons debate on Zimbabwe without comment
Please just scroll down to read
FOREWORD
The Webmaster, a British National by birth, resident in Zimbabwe and a victim of violence and the Law, will comment on Straws statement paragraph by paragraph in order to highlight the inaccuracies therein. The comment made by the webmaster is meant to promote thought and debate, in the sincere hope that Jack Straw and others may see the wisdom of dialogue between parties promoting peace. Simply put, in any situation there is only one thing worse than no dialogue and that is inflammatory rhetoric which causes or incites, war at worst and human suffering at best.
The webmaster is prepared to assist anyone in any way he can to bring about fair compensation and a peaceful solution between all parties from a position of fairness.
General Comment
It is shameful and decidedly less than British, that the best that Jack Straw has to offer is inflammatory political rhetoric when so many in Zimbabwe were hopeful that he may adopt the position of peacemaker, be a decision maker acting with both honour and integrity.
Again his statement smacks of international political propaganda and whilst this may be acceptable whilst standing on the ballot box, it is totally unacceptable in the House as, by extension, it offends the repute of all MPs in the Commons.
He places the interests of the opposition political party of a foreign country first, and the interests of his British Nationals and Britain last.
He appears to have lost sight of the fact that the interests of British Nationals, British Industry and Commerce are and should be the foremost interests of Britain and its Government.
With respect, you may not state or infer that the success of an opposition party in a foreign country equals democracy and that you are going to do all you can to achieve that aim whilst advocating democracy in foreign countries.
Jack Straw and the Blair Government need to be stopped from going around the world imposing governments on foreign countries in the vague imagination that its the way of Democracy, in conflict with the opinion of the vast majority of the world.
They need to be reminded that this is the responsibility of the United Nations and not the British taxpayer.
PLEA ON BEHALF OF BRITISH OVERSEAS PENSIONERS
It were better that Jack Straw dealt with such issues as the plight of British pensioners resident in foreign countries, the inequality of their pension with that of a pensioner resident in Britain when they have made identical contributions. The way consecutive British governments have allowed their aged, resident overseas, to be reduced to beggars reliant on the charity of foreign society and foreign governments.
Simply put, in the case where you made full pension contributions while employed in Britain: -
- If you retire in the United States you get the full pension that you paid for with same increases as a pensioner in Britain.
- In the former colonies you are restricted to the level of pension you were receiving when you left Britain, mayhap thirty or forty years ago, without the standard inflationary or statutory increases.
It is thus, over the passage of time, with inflation within foreign countries, proud British pensioners permanently employed in Britain throughout their lifetime, are reduced to living literally on bread and water as local charity dries up. While British Parliamentarians discuss the need for food aid in Zimbabwe they expect Zimbabwe to provide facilities and assist British Pensioners. What is happening in effect is that those resident in the UK with free health and other facilities are being given inflation increments presumably from the savings made by British Pensioners living overseas and therefore not utilising UK social services.
18th March 2003. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos):
"Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the wider issue. Indeed, I remember answering a Question on this matter on behalf of my noble friend, and then receiving what was by far my largest postbag. To increase the basic state pension by inflation for all overseas pensioners not protected by bilateral agreements would cost us some £400 million. The Government have made it clear that our priority is UK pensioners resident in the United Kingdom."
and, in a display of double standards about Zimbabwe pensions paid outside Zimbabwe:-
"or indeed the value of their pensions having fallen so much that they are virtually worthless. I receive a number of letters on the issue, and we have raised it many times with the Government of Zimbabwe. Until the economy of Zimbabwe improves, I doubt whether those pensioners will receive the pension that they deserve."
"Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am confident that our High Commission is doing everything that it can. As regards those pensioners who were locally engaged-and who are therefore in receipt of Zimbabwean pensions-the staff are sending, on average, three letters and six e-mails each week to the pensions authority in Zimbabwe. Indeed, they have had meetings with the authority."
"That is why we have made every effort to ensure that their pensions are respected."
Why are British pensioners living in the USA given full pensions increased by inflation?
Is Baroness Amos asserting that British pensioners residing overseas are receiving "pension that they deserve" from the British government?
Surely the High Commissions first priority should be sending letters and emails to the British government, in respect of, British pensioners at starvation level in receipt of pitiful pensions at the rate of decades ago when they left UK.
To simply abandon British pensioners because they wanted to travel and live overseas presumably on the basis that it is more difficult for them to complain is inhumane. To attempt to justify it by saying there are no bilateral agreements with some poor Commonwealth Countries enforcing that Britain pays their pensioners a full pension with standard inflationary increments is shameful. To say that it would cost too much to give any British national his/ her full pension increased by inflation that he paid for in full over his/ her working life is dishonest.
This is clearly an infringement of their civil and human rights and would be considered a fraudulent act if practised by a private pension fund. This not about charity or a gift, its about an entitlement that they paid for in full to be paid the same pension as any other British national wherever they choose to reside. No British national was made aware that lower pensions would be paid to those who decided to retire in certain foreign countries at either the inception of or during their payments towards pension and other benefits and that, British pensioners, unlike any EU country, would be made effective financial prisoners of the United Kingdom.
It is additionally, a contravention of Article 5 (section concerning Human Rights) of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lome on 15 December 1989 by a representative of Her Majesty the Queen and the British Government.
There is an urgent need to address this problem, these are proud British Nationals who have given a lifetimes work to Britain, some of note that served heroically in the Second World War now conveniently forgotten and reduced to starvation. Now, even a return airfare is beyond their means in the event they were prepared to abandon their personal belongings, those items of sentimental value that have become their life.
We see demonstration, British government debate and legislation to protect our foxes yet, no publicity, not one demonstration for our starving pensioners, those that put their lives on the line that we may have the freedom we enjoy today. We accept the statement in Parliament that, in effect, it is too expensive to give them their full pension, to care for them and to feed them.
It is thus, we seek to hide our shame whilst illustrating to the world the kind of society we have become by, dumping our pensioners, making them dependent on the charity of those poor third world countries that, our parliamentarians declare need food aid.
There is much more including, adding insult to injury, the fact that the severely reduced British pensions are then taxed at source prior to remitting them overseas without the provision of any facilities for the aged outside the United Kingdom.
The British Pensions Office should be made to back pay them. To ignore such an issue because they are too aged, bereft of funds and out of sight is beneath contempt.
Should these pensioners return to the United Kingdom they would receive a normal full British pension, free medical care and be entitled to assistance from social services as applicable. Instead, they utilise foreign facilities and the British Government confiscates part of their pension that they paid for in full. There is an urgent need to derestrict British pensions, particularly in Zimbabwe, in view of the rampant inflation.
Sadly, overseas, the British Government is no longer known as a payer of debts, even by its own Nationals.
COMMONS DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE WITH THE WEBMASTERS COMMENT IN RED ITALICS BY PARAGRAPH
STRAW OPENS COMMONS DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE (01/07/04)
Event: Government Debate on Zimbabwe
Location: House of Commons
Speech Date: 01/07/04
Speaker: Jack Straw
UNOFFICIAL VERSION. HANSARD VERSION TO FOLLOW.
Mr Speaker,
It is the great misfortune of the people of Zimbabwe that Robert Mugabe's regime has no regard for human rights, the rule of law, or the responsibility of government to provide competent economic management. A comparatively prosperous country has been plunged into poverty by the recklessness of its ruling party. Members of the Zimbabwean Opposition have been subjected to persistent violence and victimisation. And on the country's farms, regime thugs have subjected owners and workers, the great majority black, but also white, to a campaign of terror.
There is temptation to write, "It is the great misfortune of Zimbabwe that Jack Straw etc." but in order to set the example the writer will refrain from so doing.
This is unnecessary political inflammatory rhetoric. Factually, as accepted by the British Government, Robert Mugabes regime fought for Independence, the return of their land, Human Rights, and it was only recently that Britains attitude towards him changed.
The Independent Judiciary and "rule of law" is more than adequately described on the page entitled Justice and the Law which concludes that there was not much the Zimbabwe government could have done other than interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary which Jack Straw is against.
Zimbabwes economy grew in the eighties under the same government that exists today. What happened was that World Bank and IMF became involved, supported and enforced at the time by Britain amongst others. The "Select Committee on Zimbabwe" touched on this in 2000, and although one member stated that they couldnt hold Peter Hain responsible for the acts of the World Bank, I disagree, in that Britain helped by its insistence that Zimbabwe "stayed on track" to disaster (ESAP) or face economic penalties.
It is the economic degradation that has led to demonstration, violence and the opposition party, seemingly supported by Straw, leading to the eventual civil war.
Simply put, its the eventual progression of those negligent financial decisions imposed on Zimbabwe by the First World and its financial institutions. This is factual and can be supported by an independent, extremely detailed, three-year study by top EU economists on all sectors of Zimbabwes economy. Including those aid organisations of note, financial institutions both local and international and completed in the year 2000, as yet, unseen by members of the Zimbabwe Government but which, the writer had the privilege of studying.
Throughout, the government of Zimbabwe has acted in defiance of the international community and has used every device to present problems of its own making as the fault of the former colonial power, the United Kingdom.
Strong words indeed made by an individual who acted in defiance of the UN, the international community when his government invaded Iraq. Zimbabwe has the democratic right to ignore Jack Straws instructions and demands. Factually, legally and morally the faults are of the making and negligence of the Blair government and former British governments, depicted and described on this web site. The affairs of British Nationals and compensation are Straws only concern and that, he has yet to address. Contrary to Straw and the Blair governments understanding the UN represent the international community.
Let me start by briefly recalling the context.
As the House is aware, the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 brought independence to Zimbabwe after a long and bloody conflict. One of the main issues at Lancaster House was land reform: the agreement set out a clear pathway, based on justice and the rule of law, for land ownership in Zimbabwe to be extended. The British Government made clear that no one donor, including Britain, could pay for the entirety of such a process; but it did commit £47 million to land reform over the following years.
There is clearly, presumably by design, a missing paragraph above referring to UDI and the reasons for the "long and bloody conflict" which gets to the heart of the "Land Issue" and responsibility as outlined on this site.
The situation is simple, its a public disgrace, Britain sold and allocated what they considered British Land to British Nationals amongst others and then, without consulting the resultant landowners, gave the land they previously sold to another. It is a fact and common cause that the Land Owners (those that purchased the land) were unrepresented at Lancaster House.
How democratic and legal is it to make an agreement with a Government yet to be elected and formed and hold it out as binding, in the full knowledge that it were possible that non of the parties present would be elected to power. In this situation the most that can be held as the lawful outcome of the Lancaster House Agreement was the cease-fire between parties.
Straw has a problem; you compensate those landowners that bought the land from you in good faith, whose land you gave away, not those that received it!
Even taking the Blair governments version of events extracted from the Foreign Office ("The Constitution of Zimbabwe agreed at Lancaster House entrenched protection for property rights for the first ten years of Independence. The Government's acquisition of land was limited to the willing buyer/willing seller principle. Thereafter, the Zimbabwe Parliament would be able to alter the Constitution in accordance with its own legislation.") the then British Government effectively reduced all the freehold land they had sold to "10 year leasehold land" without the acceptance of, permission of, or, compensation to, those landowners to whom Britain previously sold the land.
Its not about Land Reform its about compensation. Just read the minutes of the Select Committee on Zimbabwe on this site and the various descriptions like redressing the massive unequal distribution of land when all the land thus described has British Title Deeds. If he has doubts on this issue he just has to read the Constitution of Zimbabwe to refresh his memory.
I wonder what the French, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, those formally occupied nations in Europe, reaction would have been after the Second World War if, the German Government " made it clear" that they couldnt afford to pay them back for the land they had sold in their countries and therefore, they couldnt have their land back. Has Jack Straw really no idea how such an insensitive choice of phraseology may incite or inflame the general public of all former colonised countries against Britain?
There is a serious need for Jack Straw and those others who may agree with his views to consider, how the situation looks to others, how it is viewed internationally. What irreparable damage his stance, his statements, the Blair governments actions or inactions, are doing to Britains image internationally.
The Zimbabwean Government eventually handed back some £3 million of that money, having insufficient projects on which to spend it - a sign that until the late 1990s, the process, dictated by the Zimbabwe Government, was progressing at a relatively modest pace and with low political priority. This coincided with years of growing prosperity for Zimbabwe. But the idea that this was some kind of golden age for Mugabe's Zimbabwe is false. His brutality and desire to stifle opposition by any available means was also increasingly clear. During the 1980s some 20,000 people were massacred by North Korean-trained soldiers in Matabeleland - atrocities which went largely unremarked by the British Government of the day. These massacres were only ended when the ZAPU party of Joshua Nkomo was subsumed within Robert Mugabe's ZANU (PF), beginning a virtual one-party state in Zimbabwe which lasted for some 10 years.
Rather than the Land Issue have a low priority there could be another, more realistic and practical reason as succinctly described by Mr Illsley in the 2000 Examination of Hain on Zimbabwe quoted below.
Jack Straw would do well to read the minutes, prior to making statements.
"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."
Factually, the economy of Zimbabwe started to decline as ESAP took effect and there is strong evidence to suggest that there may well have been deliberate sabotage under the cloak of ESAP.
Whilst giving mention to Matabeleland and noting that it went unremarked by the British Government of the day he fails to address the rather obvious question which is, why?
I would suggest that British intelligence could fill in some gaps there. I do not seek to excuse or condone violence; however, I have been made aware that there were other players. It may be that the former British government had knowledge of this.
Simply put, the Zimbabwe government had inherited an integrated army some of whom it had been at war with. In the event of an uprising or coup attempt it was bound to use those it could trust, the unintigrated fifth brigade. The Department of Psychological Warfare in South Africa played a significant role in inciting the scenario to cause precisely this situation as part of its destabilising effort against Zimbabwe which was presumably why it was" unremarked" by a previous British Government.
The writer knew Joshua Nkomo personally, he was essentially a man of peace, to say he was "subsumed" is to state that you didnt know him. What Zimbabwe had was a coalition government for peace and this is a good and healthy development in third world politics.
Serious opposition to Mugabe's rule emerged again in the late 1990s, with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangarai. The MDC's influence became clear in 2000, when a referendum on Constitutional changes saw ZANU (PF)'s first ever defeat in a popular poll.
The reason that this was a "popular poll" is amply described within this web site under Justice and the Law, there were other players in the background with hidden agendas.
This time, Robert Mugabe responded to opposition to his rule by seizing on the issue of land reform - breaking away from the pathway based on the rule of law which had been agreed at Lancaster House, by him, and beginning a policy of violent appropriation.
This is untrue, the Constitutional Commission seized upon the issue of land reform and the opposition was born on the back of land reform, out of landowners concern about compensation and with their funding. This is a matter of public record.
So great was the international concern at this that President Mugabe reluctantly agreed that his Foreign Minister, Dr Stan Mudenge, would meet a delegation of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Abuja in September 2001, under the aegis of President Obasanjo of Nigeria. I attended this meeting, at which after tough negotiating we agreed a deal to end the crisis: the international community would provide further money for land reform, in exchange for a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe. I put a cheque on the table from the British Government. Mugabe, however, quickly reneged on this agreement - not least as the international focus rapidly moved elsewhere, following the atrocities of 11 September five days later. The farm invasions and human rights abuses which had preceded the Abuja meeting were swiftly resumed.
May we have the opportunity of assisting Jack Straw to relocate the cheque?
Some of the dispossessed white farmers here need the compensation desperately?
I am not sure that President Mugabe could have stopped the farm invasions without it ending up in faction fighting and civil war. Simply put it took Straw too long to sign the cheque.
And today, the abuses continue. They form part of a wider picture of disastrous policies in Zimbabwe which have brought economic ruin on a once prospering country - a man-made tragedy which Zimbabwe could and should have avoided.
The writer concedes that the economic ruin is man made, but differs on the cause. The negligence of the Blair Government combined with those economists and financial institutions such as the World Bank are the route cause of the economic ruin adequately described on this site under the economy.
Three-quarters of the Zimbabwean population are now living below the poverty line. Some seven million people have required food aid in recent seasons, in a country, which only a few years ago exported food to its neighbours. But despite the evidence of another humanitarian crisis in prospect for this year, the Government of Zimbabwe claims that international food aid will not be needed. This decision not to ask for assistance will make it difficult for donors to deliver an effective international response if and when food aid is in fact required.
Alongside his disastrous economic policies, Mugabe's ZANU (PF) party continues to suppress all opposition to his rule. Both print and broadcast media in Zimbabwe are now virtually a government-controlled monopoly. The judgement in the trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai has still not been handed down, although the trial itself concluded months ago.
The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial which could be used to suppress dissent and protest. According to a report issued by a South African-based NGO last March, 90 per cent of opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subjected to human rights violations since 2000. 16 per cent have been tortured, 24 per cent have suffered assassination attempts, and three have died as a result of assaults.
It is mischievous to construe an increase in the length of detention for certain classes of crime as a political tool; the writer played a part in lobbying for an Anti Corruption Bill locally with severe penalties. A serious local problem is the fact that there are those criminals finding safe haven in the EU under the auspices of political refugees.
High inflation and cost of living equals increase in crime. The writer does not approve of violence in any form but is a victim himself, you dont have to be an MP to be intimidated, tortured, assassinated or assaulted they are normal results of economic decay in which the Blair government itself plays its part .
Mr Speaker,
We have been in the lead in respect of sanctions on Zimbabwe. We could easily have put sanctions ourselves on the political elite but that would have raised the question - so what? If they had been able to travel to the rest of the EU and the US and if there had not been approbrium by the Commonwealth it would have been we who had been mocked and not Mugabe. The effect of our engagement in the EU is to get the rest of the 15 and now 25 countries, many of whom have no history with Zimbabwe, to accept our case, against strong African lobbying, for sanctions.
I know of no African country lobbying for sanctions against Zimbabwe?
In the United Nations, we discuss Zimbabwe regularly with the UN Secretariat and Agencies, who are fully seized of the situation there. For three years, the EU has tabled a resolution in the UN Commission on Human Rights drawing attention to the widespread violation of human rights by the Government in Zimbabwe. Regrettably, other African members of the Commission have used procedural motions to block discussion of these resolutions. That highlights again the fact that there are many countries, including Zimbabwe's neighbours, who see the situation differently from us.
Perhaps those African neighbours are right, could it not be that Jack Straw is wrong and the Blair Government has left Britain wide open to massive compensation claims. Maybe their closeness to the situation allows them to Judge from the facts. None of them would, im sure approve of the violence and lawlessness but all of them would look upon the land as being stolen until paid for and Britain responsible for same.
With respect there are only two reasons for countries on the UN Commission on Human Rights blocking discussion, either they dont believe in Human rights in which case Britain shouldnt be a member or they feel Britain is responsible, has caused it, is a party to a Human Rights infringement.
Is there not a serious need to take a long look at your conduct and examine your position when so many countries see the situation differently, especially when its a "Human Rights Commission" of all things.
Jack Straw and the Blair government need to act with honour to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe they allowed to happen, to gain back the respect of the Third World and enhance British Trade.
Exposing those differences in a body such as the Commission on Human Rights is one thing; but it would be only be counterproductive to do so, as some Hon Members have suggested, in so high-profile an arena as the UN Security Council. I am as certain as I can be that President Mugabe would dearly like us to seek action by the Security Council, as it would deliver him the propaganda coup of exposing divisions in the international community. But our clear view is that doing so now would put the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe back, not forward.
The fact that Straw thinks there would be divisions in the Security Council says it all. How can he ignore the Security Council in the case of Iraq and then simultaneously use it as an excuse in the case of Zimbabwe. His frankness with the Hon Members is open to dispute.
Through the European Union, however, we are able to take tougher action. The EU agreed targeted measures against the ZANU (PF) regime in February 2002; and others such as the US, Australia and New Zealand have since followed suit. The EU's measures include an arms embargo, an assets freeze, and a travel ban targeted at leading members of the ZANU (PF) regime.
In the knowledge of the background the writer believes it shameful to use Britains friends to get out of paying a debt.
In February this year, the UK was in the lead in extending the list of those covered by the EU assets freeze and travel ban from 79 to 95 people. Among those now covered by the extended list are the Head of the Media Commission, who has continually sought to silence dissenting voices in the media; the Registrar General, closely associated with the fraudulent elections of 2002; the leader of the so-called 'War Veterans', who have been instrumental in developing the culture of political violence in Zimbabwe; all Zimbabwe's Presidentially-appointed provincial governors, who enforce President Mugabe's writ around the country; and the new Ministers appointed in the February cabinet reshuffle.
How is it possible to support the Zimbabwe Judiciary and the courts (the rule of law), but ignore their judgements and still maintain there were fraudulent elections based on the oppositions complaints. Factually, as depicted on the BBC, the culture of political violence started with the unions led by the leader of the opposition.
Can Jack Straw and the Blair government honestly claim that they havent sought to silence dissenting voices in the British Media and elsewhere?
There are two things we are not going to do. We are not going to impose economic sanctions on the people of Zimbabwe and we are not going to contemplate military action.
A sensible decision having illustrated an incredible lack of knowledge of the background.
Unfortunately, its not true!
The "Economic Sanctions" notification copied below is in "real time" and was imposed on the 16th July, 04 (Date extracted from hidden reference HTML on their web page)
 |
 |
Error 3029. Due to US economic sanctions you are not authorised to access the PayPal system. You can obtain further information from PayPal at 08707 307 191 or from the Office of Foreign Assets Control at www.treas.gov/ofac |
| At first sight one may consider that this is an act of the U.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control as they are mentioned and the link leads to their web site page.
Wrong!
PayPal (Europe) Ltd. is regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom as an electronic money institution.
PayPal FSA Register Number: 226056
You might consider that its a mistake because Jack Straw stated above "We are not going to impose economic sanctions on the people of Zimbabwe" so you send an email to the appeals section. ofacappeal@paypal.com
Wrong again!
The reply from a British registered email address webform@paypal.co.uk states "unfortunately you cannot use PayPal from where you are at present."(Zimbabwe.) It goes on to list the other countries from which you may access your account.
This is not about rules or policy, as succinctly stated, this is about economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe as, you can still access your account from other countries. In order to possess such a British electronic financial account you have to have a UK address and UK banking facilities which imply that those affected will be mainly British Nationals, British overseas pensioners and those white farmers already divested of their assets in Zimbabwe. We don’t want to hear lame excuses about a Paypal (Europe) Ltd policy change.
If there is cause for concern and I cant see why there should be, there are more humanitarian ways of dealing with a problem. Place a monthly turnover limit or transaction limit on those British Nationals resident out of Britain or, be truthful and advise those people in Zimbabwe that you have imposed sanctions against them because you don’t like their government. That as their self appointed father figure you fully intend, in the name of democracy, to starve them into agreement with you.
In the account that the economic sanctions are applied against above, the average turnover of does not exceed 50 pounds a month. The account holder is a British National by birth and descent, has never been a member of any political party or organisation, left the RAF with a character reference of "exemplary conduct", and is currently lobbying for Civil and Human Rights, Justice for all and Peace. Issues, Jack Straw himself, in this same statement, declares he will support.
Hardly a threat to the U.S. Treasury, Britain or any country. In fact, quite frankly, the writer regards himself, in the circumstances, probably more of an asset to the United Kingdom than Jack Straw.
The webmaster believes that in the context of Jack Straws statement above, this has to be a Human Rights and Freedom of Speech and Expression infringement by him of note.
It would be greatly appreciated if those readers who value Human rights and the principles of Freedom of Speech and Expression would take the time to protest the action depicted above by emailing and lobbying their MP or MEP whose email addresses may be found, by clicking the following link.
Send an email of protest to your MP or MEP now, their email address and online email facilities can be found by clicking this link
Please feel free to include this web page address by simply copy and pasting the following link into your email: -
http://zimfarmer.itgo.com/jackstraw.html
or to get their attention: -
Jack Straw imposes sanctions on British Nationals!
Tip: - Some online email pages may not accept links so try copy and pasting zimfarmer.itgo.com/photo2html with the explanation that the recipient simply has to copy or type it, as is, into their browser (it should automatically be converted back to a link with the http added by the browser) or, simply put postmaster@zimfarmer.itgo.com as the email address and explain that all the recipient has to do is to remove postmaster@ and they have the web site.
Mr Speaker,
Let me turn to the issue of cricket tours. I know that Hon Members are concerned both about the England tour to Zimbabwe this winter, and about Zimbabwe's participation in the Champions' Trophy one-day tournament in London this September, to which my HF the Member for Vauxhall has drawn the House's attention.
On 10 June, a sub-committee of the International Cricket Council recommended that Zimbabwe's test matches scheduled for the rest of this year be deferred. This period covers the planned England tour. The ICC is today deciding whether to ratify this recommendation. The Government's position remains clear: we do not have state-run sport in this country, and nor would we want it. Decisions on cricket tours are rightly for the cricket authorities to make.
On the visit of the Zimbabwe team to England, we do not believe that stopping Zimbabwean cricketers from travelling to the UK will advance our cause - anymore than would banning Zimbabwean expatriates. The EU travel ban is, rightly, targeted not at sportsmen, but at members of the regime.
Blair did influence the British cricket team to boycott Zimbabwe to the detriment of all sport worldwide. He is responsible. For years sport organisers have fought to keep politics out of sport.
Thus encouraged, the follow up of the black arm bands by two local players led to the change of local selectors which led to the current impasse - how can members of a national team demonstrate against the nation and government they represent? - Why didnt they simply resign or refuse to represent the country?
With respect, you cant turn an international cricket match into an effective demonstration for the opposition party by wearing black arm bands and expect to get away with it.
Ironically the two cricketers demonstration of wearing black armbands supposingly depicting the death of democracy and freedom of speech in Zimbabwe in fact proved to the contrary. Only two of the players chose to demonstrate out of an entire team illustrating democracy and the fact that the clear majority didnt seem to agree. The fact that no one was arrested illustrated freedom of speech and expression in the most sensitive circumstance. What would happen to sportsmen and women in America, Britain or any first world country who while representing same say in the Olympic Games, publicly demonstrated against their respective governments? Would they be left to continue their game or would they be packed off back to their country? Even during the cold war, Russian sportsmen and women chose to defect rather than demonstrate.
In saying the above there is a serious need to correct the impasse and to adopt the principal of the best available selectors and sportsmen to represent the nation irrespective of race or political affiliation. There has got to be other ways to discipline sportsmen and women representing a country in the best interests of sport .
Mr Speaker,
As well as applying international pressure for positive change in Zimbabwe, the UK is leading international efforts to improve the situation of the Zimbabwean people, and to prepare for Zimbabwe's reconstruction following a return to democratically-accountable government.
Jack Straw seems determined to appoint a new government in Zimbabwe and by so doing promote a civil war!
The UK is the second largest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, after the United States. We have contributed £67 million worth of humanitarian assistance over the last three years, including contributions to the World Food Programme which is providing food to millions of Zimbabweans. We are also contributing £26.5 million over the next five years to programmes to combat the ravages of HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe.
A noble effort, all that is needed now is a British Government that works towards peace and ceases inflammatory rhetoric that may rebound on its British Nationals as happened previously .
We support those in Zimbabwe who are working for the return of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. So along with the rest of the international community, we are offering political and practical support to civil rights workers, lawyers defending those persecuted by the state, human rights activists, trades unionists and others working for peaceful change. I should however put on record, Mr Speaker, that Mugabe's attempts to paint the Opposition MDC as British 'stooges' are both ridiculous and typical - and are a further attempt by him to undermine those who seek a better future for all Zimbabweans.
I hereby apply for the practical support offered in the paragraph above, this site being completely apolitical supporting Human Rights, Justice and Peace as evidenced from the content.
A donation button is provided below specifically for Jack Straws personal convenience. In supporting the values of "freedom of speech" the webmaster trusts that the donation will be one of substance. In the event of economic sanctions Jack Straw may wish to email me if sincere about he promotion of human rights!
All donations however small gratefully received just click "Jack Straws" button below .
Although, as described above, due to economic sanctions the webmaster has no access to the account, you may feel inclined to donate into same as a protest against his action; other donations may be made by emailing the webmaster. E-Mail Me
In order to promote peace, there is a need to adopt a middle position, to be a friend. It is only from this position you can advise, and I stress advise as opposed to dictate. You cannot advocate a change in government of a foreign country, insult the current government, support one opposition party, label the opposition as "those who seek a better future for all Zimbabweans" without them even having a track record of same and then state they are not British "stooges".
Mr Speaker,
We stand ready to work with any administration in Zimbabwe which has been democratically elected in a free and fair vote, and which is committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law and to addressing poverty.
And we recognise that such a government would need the full support of the international community in rebuilding the country. We would expect to play an important role in a credible recovery programme. And we are already in discussion with other international donors, including the European Commission, the United States and the World Bank, to prepare contingency plans for rebuilding Zimbabwe's economy and institutions once democracy has been restored. However long it takes, this country will return once again to a bright future as a democracy.
It is to be hoped that the above commitment includes any democratically elected government and not solely MDC. The webmaster stresses the need for politics to be a secondary consideration to justice, peace and stability.
Mr Speaker,
Achieving that democracy will remain the focus of the Government's policy. We will continue to work with the broadest-possible international coalition to apply pressure for change, while helping to improve the humanitarian situation of the Zimbabwean people.
In order for democracy to remain the focus of Governments policy the Government has to be seen to be impartial in strict accord with democratic principals. The writer firmly believes that there will inevitably be a credibility problem between the British Government and Zimbabwe.
A return to democracy and policies which do not harm the poor is the best hope for the future of Zimbabwe. We will do all we can to bring about such a change.
It were better that the British Government focused its attention on compensation, the effects on the poor and human suffering as a direct result of the Blair Governments negligence.
The webmaster would be grateful for any comments or relevant research material for this web site. Simply click the following guest book link.
Send this page to your MP, MEP, your local paper or a friend.
one of the following links into your email.
Reaction on Straw debate on Zimbabwe
Blair government contravenes section on Human Rights in Lome Convention
Blair government starves British Overseas Pensioners
Tony Blair and criminal negligence
The role the Blair government played in the Zimbabwe Land Issue
E-Mail Me
COMMONS DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE WITHOUT THE WEBMASTERS COMMENTS
STRAW OPENS COMMONS DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE (01/07/04)
Event: Government Debate on Zimbabwe
Location: House of Commons
Speech Date: 01/07/04
Speaker: Jack Straw
UNOFFICIAL VERSION. HANSARD VERSION TO FOLLOW.
Mr Speaker,
It is the great misfortune of the people of Zimbabwe that Robert Mugabe's regime has no regard for human rights, the rule of law, or the responsibility of government to provide competent economic management. A comparatively prosperous country has been plunged into poverty by the recklessness of its ruling party. Members of the Zimbabwean Opposition have been subjected to persistent violence and victimisation. And on the country's farms, regime thugs have subjected owners and workers, the great majority black, but also white, to a campaign of terror.
Throughout, the government of Zimbabwe has acted in defiance of the international community and has used every device to present problems of its own making as the fault of the former colonial power, the United Kingdom.
Let me start by briefly recalling the context.
As the House is aware, the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 brought independence to Zimbabwe after a long and bloody conflict. One of the main issues at Lancaster House was land reform: the agreement set out a clear pathway, based on justice and the rule of law, for land ownership in Zimbabwe to be extended. The British Government made clear that no one donor, including Britain, could pay for the entirety of such a process; but it did commit £47 million to land reform over the following years.
The Zimbabwean Government eventually handed back some £3 million of that money, having insufficient projects on which to spend it - a sign that until the late 1990s, the process, dictated by the Zimbabwe Government, was progressing at a relatively modest pace and with low political priority. This coincided with years of growing prosperity for Zimbabwe. But the idea that this was some kind of golden age for Mugabe's Zimbabwe is false. His brutality and desire to stifle opposition by any available means was also increasingly clear. During the 1980s some 20,000 people were massacred by North Korean-trained soldiers in Matabeleland - atrocities which went largely unremarked by the British Government of the day. These massacres were only ended when the ZAPU party of Joshua Nkomo was subsumed within Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF), beginning a virtual one-party state in Zimbabwe which lasted for some 10 years.
Serious opposition to Mugabe's rule emerged again in the late 1990s, with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangarai. The MDC's influence became clear in 2000, when a referendum on Constitutional changes saw ZANU(PF)'s first ever defeat in a popular poll.
This time, Robert Mugabe responded to opposition to his rule by seizing on the issue of land reform - breaking away from the pathway based on the rule of law which had been agreed at Lancaster House, by him, and beginning a policy of violent appropriation.
So great was the international concern at this that President Mugabe reluctantly agreed that his Foreign Minister, Dr Stan Mudenge, would meet a delegation of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Abuja in September 2001, under the aegis of President Obasanjo of Nigeria. I attended this meeting, at which after tough negotiating we agreed a deal to end the crisis: the international community would provide further money for land reform, in exchange for a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe. I put a cheque on the table from the British Government. Mugabe, however, quickly reneged on this agreement - not least as the international focus rapidly moved elsewhere, following the atrocities of 11 September five days later. The farm invasions and human rights abuses which had preceded the Abuja meeting were swiftly resumed.
And today, the abuses continue. They form part of a wider picture of disastrous policies in Zimbabwe which have brought economic ruin on a once prospering country - a man-made tragedy which Zimbabwe could and should have avoided.
Three-quarters of the Zimbabwean population are now living below the poverty line. Some seven million people have required food aid in recent seasons, in a country which only a few years ago exported food to its neighbours. But despite the evidence of another humanitarian crisis in prospect for this year, the Government of Zimbabwe claims that international food aid will not be needed. This decision not to ask for assistance will make it difficult for donors to deliver an effective international response if and when food aid is in fact required.
Alongside his disastrous economic policies, Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party continues to suppress all opposition to his rule. Both print and broadcast media in Zimbabwe are now virtually a government-controlled monopoly. The judgement in the trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai has still not been handed down, although the trial itself concluded months ago.
The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial which could be used to suppress dissent and protest. According to a report issued by a South African-based NGO last March, 90 per cent of opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subjected to human rights violations since 2000. 16 per cent have been tortured, 24 per cent have suffered assassination attempts, and three have died as a result of assaults.
Mr Speaker,
We have been in the lead in respect of sanctions on Zimbabwe. We could easily have put sanctions ourselves on the political elite but that would have raised the question - so what? If they had been able to travel to the rest of the EU and the US and if there had not been approbrium by the Commonwealth it would have been we who had been mocked and not Mugabe. The effect of our engagement in the EU is to get the rest of the 15 and now 25 countries, many of whom have no history with Zimbabwe, to accept our case, against strong African lobbying, for sanctions.
In the United Nations, we discuss Zimbabwe regularly with the UN Secretariat and Agencies, who are fully seized of the situation there. For three years, the EU has tabled a resolution in the UN Commission on Human Rights drawing attention to the widespread violation of human rights by the Government in Zimbabwe. Regrettably, other African members of the Commission have used procedural motions to block discussion of these resolutions. That highlights again the fact that there are many countries, including Zimbabwe's neighbours, who see the situation differently from us.
Exposing those differences in a body such as the Commission on Human Rights is one thing; but it would be only be counterproductive to do so, as some Hon Members have suggested, in so high-profile an arena as the UN Security Council. I am as certain as I can be that President Mugabe would dearly like us to seek action by the Security Council, as it would deliver him the propaganda coup of exposing divisions in the international community. But our clear view is that doing so now would put the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe back, not forward.
Through the European Union, however, we are able to take tougher action. The EU agreed targeted measures against the ZANU(PF) regime in February 2002; and others such as the US, Australia and New Zealand have since followed suit. The EU's measures include an arms embargo, an assets freeze, and a travel ban targeted at leading members of the ZANU(PF) regime.
In February this year, the UK was in the lead in extending the list of those covered by the EU assets freeze and travel ban from 79 to 95 people. Among those now covered by the extended list are the Head of the Media Commission, who has continually sought to silence dissenting voices in the media; the Registrar General, closely associated with the fraudulent elections of 2002; the leader of the so-called 'War Veterans', who have been instrumental in developing the culture of political violence in Zimbabwe; all Zimbabwe's Presidentially-appointed provincial governors, who enforce President Mugabe's writ around the country; and the new Ministers appointed in the February cabinet reshuffle.
There are two things we are not going to do. We are not going to impose economic sanctions on the people of Zimbabwe and we are not going to contemplate military action.
Mr Speaker,
Let me turn to the issue of cricket tours. I know that Hon Members are concerned both about the England tour to Zimbabwe this winter, and about Zimbabwe's participation in the Champions' Trophy one-day tournament in London this September, to which my HF the Member for Vauxhall has drawn the House's attention.
On 10 June, a sub-committee of the International Cricket Council recommended that Zimbabwe's test matches scheduled for the rest of this year be deferred. This period covers the planned England tour. The ICC is today deciding whether to ratify this recommendation. The Government's position remains clear: we do not have state-run sport in this country, and nor would we want it. Decisions on cricket tours are rightly for the cricket authorities to make.
On the visit of the Zimbabwe team to England, we do not believe that stopping Zimbabwean cricketers from travelling to the UK will advance our cause - anymore than would banning Zimbabwean expatriates. The EU travel ban is, rightly, targeted not at sportsmen, but at members of the regime.
Mr Speaker,
As well as applying international pressure for positive change in Zimbabwe, the UK is leading international efforts to improve the situation of the Zimbabwean people, and to prepare for Zimbabwe's reconstruction following a return to democratically-accountable government.
The UK is the second largest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, after the United States. We have contributed £67 million worth of humanitarian assistance over the last three years, including contributions to the World Food Programme which is providing food to millions of Zimbabweans. We are also contributing £26.5 million over the next five years to programmes to combat the ravages of HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe.
We support those in Zimbabwe who are working for the return of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. So along with the rest of the international community, we are offering political and practical support to civil rights workers, lawyers defending those persecuted by the state, human rights activists, trades unionists and others working for peaceful change. I should however put on record, Mr Speaker, that Mugabe's attempts to paint the Opposition MDC as British 'stooges' are both ridiculous and typical - and are a further attempt by him to undermine those who seek a better future for all Zimbabweans.
Mr Speaker,
We stand ready to work with any administration in Zimbabwe which has been democratically elected in a free and fair vote, and which is committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law and to addressing poverty.
And we recognise that such a government would need the full support of the international community in rebuilding the country. We would expect to play an important role in a credible recovery programme. And we are already in discussion with other international donors, including the European Commission, the United States and the World Bank, to prepare contingency plans for rebuilding Zimbabwe's economy and institutions once democracy has been restored. However long it takes, this country will return once again to a bright future as a democracy.
Mr Speaker,
Achieving that democracy will remain the focus of the Government's policy. We will continue to work with the broadest-possible international coalition to apply pressure for change, while helping to improve the humanitarian situation of the Zimbabwean people.
A return to democracy and policies which do not harm the poor is the best hope for the future of Zimbabwe. We will do all we can to bring about such a change.
The webmaster would be grateful for any comments or relevant research material for this web site. Simply click the following guest book link.
Send this page to your MP, MEP, your local paper or a friend.
Send an email of protest to your MP or MEP now, their email address and online email facilities can be found by clicking this link
Copy and paste one of the following links into your email to get their attention.
Jack Straw imposes sanctions on British Nationals!
Reaction on Straw debate on Zimbabwe
Blair government contravenes section on Human Rights in Lome Convention
Blair government starves British Overseas Pensioners
Tony Blair and criminal negligence
The role the Blair government played in the Zimbabwe Land Issue
All donations however small gratefully received please click the donation link below or email for instructions.
E-Mail Me
|
