---

Commonwealth

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Freeman on initiating the debate. Zimbabwe is not in the Commonwealth, but I believe that almost all noble Lords would like to see it come back into it once it resumes a regime that respects the principles of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, Zimbabwe’s conditions are moving further away from achieving that position rather than closer to it. The proportion of the population below the poverty line has now reached 80 per cent. Expectation of life has dropped from above 70 years to below 40. A quarter of the population have fled, including many of the best educated and most able people; I doubt whether they will all go back. The World Economic Forum has rated Zimbabwe as the least competitive of 117 countries that it assessed. I want to talk particularly about the report by Anna Tibaijuka, who was appointed by the United Nations to investigate the clearances of various inhabited areas in Zimbabwe of housing and businesses. The local language describes the clearances as ““Operation Clearing Rubbish””; I call them ““Operation Eviction and Destruction””, as 700,000 people have been made homeless and lost their businesses. Altogether, 2.4 million people are affected. The report has been debated by the UN Security Council on the initiative of Her Majesty’s Government, and I congratulate them on that. Unfortunately, the debate took place in private, but the report has been published and is extremely valuable. It is interesting that this event has established a role for the United Nations which we on this side of the House have been urging the Government to pursue for a long time. The report proposes various steps of reconstruction and resettlement that should be vigorously followed. Other UN organisations can be used now that the precedent has been set. The International Crisis Group suggests that Zimbabwe’s regional neighbours should make clear their expectation that Zimbabwe should implement fully the recommendations of the report, and that the African Union should encourage the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights to investigate whether the operation breached Zimbabwe’s obligations under the African Union’s human rights charter. The Commonwealth is a very suitable body for playing a part in resolving the Zimbabwe problem, but a change in the attitude of the Commonwealth leaders—especially those in Africa—is needed. It has been a puzzle for many for a long time why the African leaders are so reluctant to take the steps that would be effective. That is in spite of the obligations that they have assumed in the NePAD treaty, the African Union treaty and the SADC treaty, all of which oblige them to observe human rights, the rule of law and good governance, and to exercise peer pressure to that effect. When I asked President Obasanjo recently why the reluctance existed, he said that the reason was land. That was taken by the meeting that I attended as implicit criticism of United Kingdom governments. In fact, Her Majesty’s governments have in succession had a creditable role in relation to financing the transfer of land. Between 1980 and 1985, the United Kingdom provided £47 million for land resettlement in Zimbabwe. In following years, successive United Kingdom governments have been ready to resume assistance in financing land transfer, leading to a conference in 1998 in which all major international donors took part. But that conference was met by indifference on the part of Zimbabwe. At Abuja in 2001, agreement was reached on a scheme of land resettlement and accepted by Zimbabwe, among others, only to be repudiated within weeks by Mr Mugabe. Thinking over the history that has led to the violent and terrible situation now in Zimbabwe, I came across a copy of a document—I have every reason to believe that it is authentic—that might shed some light on why President Obasanjo gave me the reply that he did. It is dated 5 November 1997, is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Land in Zimbabwe, and states:"““I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers . . . I am told there were discussions in 1989 and 1996 to explore the possibility of further assistance. However that is all in the past””." The letter would certainly have become known to other African leaders. It will have fuelled such suspicions as they had about the intentions of the British nation to help them in the transfer of land. It is interesting that the letter was followed by the failure of the 1998 conference. The letter was signed by Clare Short, then Secretary of State for International Development. There will be many other important matters to be discussed at the Commonwealth meeting, but I hope that Zimbabwe will not be omitted. It is a very suitable subject for the Commonwealth to debate, and it would be a great pity if it were left out. If the Commonwealth has the will, it is well placed to help to resolve the problem of Zimbabwe, which is so serious for all of southern Africa—indeed, for Africa as a whole.