Côte d’Ivoire

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness has a particular and expert knowledge of this important, considerable country, which has a major trading role. Indeed, it is the world’s largest producer of cocoa, although that is not the immediate concern of all of us. Of much more concern is of course the horrific killings and the incipient, or indeed developed, civil war.

The noble Baroness asks whether we will undertake to play our part. Yes, we will. Through the EU, we will produce robust, restrictive measures and we will support the work of the UN—there are 9,000 UN troops there. We also indicate our support for the operation by the French authorities, which is at the request of Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General. We shall continue with any other forms of support that we can. The situation requires serious international attention, as the destabilisation of the whole region could develop from the horrors in Côte d’Ivoire. Like the noble Baroness we want to see, in the next hours if possible, Mr Gbagbo face the realities and a peaceful end to this ugly situation achieved.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Does the Minister recall that the African Union frequently calls for African solutions to African problems? Laudable though that aim may be, is he aware that there is real concern that the African Union appears to think that mediation is the only thing necessary? Mediation is extremely important but is it not time for the African Union to consider wider measures, especially when there are such huge humanitarian problems faced by Côte d’Ivoire?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think I have the sense of what the noble Lord is asking. The African Union role in this is very important and it has made some strong statements, as has the regional organisation, ECOWAS, whose support is also vital in this pattern. I hope that I have answered what I think the noble Lord was saying.

Libya

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I join all of your Lordships who have welcomed the policy in Security Council Resolution 1973. I congratulate the Government on putting together such a wide and broad coalition in support of it. I fear that that coalition may be much more difficult to hold together as events develop and as we seek to reinterpret the words of the resolution.

The background of the two resolutions is that they were predicated on the belief in the possibility that Colonel Gaddafi would simply fold his tent and melt quietly into the night. That has not been the case. Indeed, he is digging his heels in rapidly. In passing, the Foreign Secretary may be too optimistic, perhaps even unwise, in describing the Libyan regime as “crumbling” because of the defection of its Foreign Minister. Sometimes we can be too simplistic.

From the beginning, the Prime Minister has clearly said that Gaddafi must go. He has said more recently that there can be no end game until Gaddafi has gone. Those three of four words certainly resonate among the general population, and perhaps the world at large. I will relate a cautionary tale. The Shah of Persia ruled from 1941 to 1979 in what became a more and more repressive regime. Within the country itself and internationally, there was great clamour which coalesced into three simple words: “The Shah out”. I remember calling it out myself; I do not say that that made any difference to the outcome. The Shah went, and what did we get? The Ayatollah Khomeini, and a direct line to where we are now with Iran. I add another cautionary tale. People say, “The democratic process must be owned be the people; the people must decide who they want”. The Ayatollah Khomeini was actually confirmed in a referendum.

The body language is quite clear. We want regime change. There is no doubt about it. I do not know how we can reach a conclusion with only one outcome to this problem. As the situation develops—as there is ebb and flow between the rebel and government forces—we have had to look for new solutions. That begs a question which echoes that of my noble friends Lord West and Lady Liddell: who are the rebels? The US Secretary of State, Mrs Clinton, has said,

“we don’t know as much as we would like to know”,

about the national transitional council for Libya, this 30-strong group representing the opposition. We had better start finding out fast, if we are thinking of arming them. That is making policy on the hoof, which is always very bad.

Besides, what sort of weapons are we going to provide? What is the practicality of that? A few more rifles and automatic weapons will not be of any good. Are we giving them sophisticated weaponry? I do not for one second go so far as to suggest that we try to put tanks in, but even if we provide sophisticated weaponry how is it to be delivered? Who will do the training? Have we got the time for all this to happen? It really does not make any sense at all. What happens if the rebel army does not succeed? Let no one doubt Gaddafi’s determination to win.

If we think the unthinkable—that, perhaps, despite making efforts under UNSCR 1973 to the letter, it looks as though Gaddafi will succeed in not quelling but suppressing the rebellion—what do we do? I fear that the cold logic is that troops will at some stage have to be put on the ground. The resolution makes it quite clear that that is not permitted. The Government, and the Leader of the House, have repeated that. So if we have to go back to the UN on that resolution—back to the prospect of putting troops on the ground—we have to start working very hard with the international coalition, otherwise the whole thing is going to collapse.

It has often been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We know that good intentions are involved here, but I fear very much that the outcome might well be a Libya which is no better than that which we have now. In that regard, our demand for humanitarian assistance—which we have to provide—will be of no avail if we do not realise what we are actually going to do. The glaring gap in all discussions about this, in the Government’s policy, and in the positions of the coalition and the UN is that there is no mention of what the endgame is. That has been repeated several times in this House. That is the most important thing.

Events are moving fast. In your Lordships’ House and the other place we are in Recess for almost four weeks. How will the Government keep us informed of what is happening during that period? I am not asking for the recall of Parliament, although that might have to be done; it is a matter for the other place. The Government must be open and transparent, as they have been up to now. I fear that, in the murky reinterpretation of the resolutions, the Government may be falling into bad ways and not living up to what they have done so far.

I end on a slightly optimistic note. There is no parallel and I do not suggest that there is. Regimes and events can change very quickly for the better. I recall that it was thought that the South African apartheid regime was invincible, but within a couple of years it went. We hope that in Libya it will take less time than that. Optimistically, I believe essentially that the power of the people will prevail.

Côte d’Ivoire

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

When it comes to detailed help, particularly if force is involved, ECOWAS is the organisation that is bound to take the lead. In principle we support the proposals made by ECOWAS, but we think that the authority of the United Nations is needed before they are taken forward. If there is to be that kind of pressure backing up the views of the African Union High Level Panel, of which I am afraid Mr Gbagbo took not the slightest notice, any such firm intervention should be made through the ECOWAS system.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, given that the focus so far has been on mediation between the two parties in Côte d’Ivoire, is it not now time to abandon that since it is clearly not working? Any attempt to broker an agreement between the two candidates, one of whom failed to be elected and one of whom succeeded, is simply futile and fuels the problem?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think it has been right to try mediation and talk, but the noble Lord may be pointing in the direction in which things develop. Mr Gbagbo has flatly rejected any attempt at compromise and his troops continue to commit violent acts in Abidjan, as I described a moment ago. The lawfully elected president, Mr Ouattara, remains unable to take over his lawful position. Things may go that way, but in the African Union and ECOWAS there is a great wish to see whether it can be done without bloodshed first.

Zimbabwe

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Mr Jacob Zuma has said, while leading SADC’s support programme, that he will take personal responsibility to see that the constitutional process goes forward and that the country is properly prepared for elections. We support him in those aims; that must be the right way forward. As to the diamond smuggling and the influence of diamond sales on the whole scene, we have continued to push for compliance with the Kimberley process standards, which include the continued supervision of exports. Frankly, our European Union colleagues have not been so helpful lately in upholding the supervision of exports, which is needed to check the kind of smuggling to which my noble friend refers. Obviously, as far as this country is concerned, we have our smuggling controls at our ports, but the overall supervision of smuggling needs to be strengthened. We are continuing to push for that to happen in the Kimberley process.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I accept that the problems of Zimbabwe have to be solved within Africa itself, but is the noble Lord aware of the reports of violence and intimidation growing day by day? While it is right that President Zuma has accepted responsibility, does the Minister agree that there is an important role for the Commonwealth in this? What is he doing to pursue that?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am indeed aware of the reports that there is, once again, growing violence. That is very disturbing indeed. Like the noble Lord, I am constantly raising the role of the Commonwealth. At the moment, SADC is leading in these matters but there is considerable Commonwealth interest and, if we are able to get some improvement not only on the economic side but on the political side, the Commonwealth could collectively play a much more forward role in the recovery of that great and potentially prosperous but sadly depleted country.

Zimbabwe

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on raising this important topic. I especially echo his tribute to our late colleagues, Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Blaker. We did not always see eye to eye on our approach to Zimbabwe, but I never doubted for one second their commitment to a free and democratic Zimbabwe. We certainly shall miss them.

The document The Coalition: Our Programme for Government mentions Africa only twice. Page 22 states that the Government,

“will support pro-development trade deals, including the proposed Pan-African Free Trade Area”,

and page 20 states:

“We support reform of the UN Security Council, including permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany, Brazil and African representation”.

I can see that those are important objectives, but the document is entirely silent on the programme for Africa, which I find extremely disappointing.

Zimbabwe remains a pressing problem. In the debate on the Commonwealth introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, in December 2009, I urged for greater urgency and stimulus to move forward the process of securing the democratic future of Zimbabwe. I regret to say that there are no signs of any push within the Commonwealth, which is where we should try to achieve that.

There will be elections in August next year. Is that optimistic? It is hoped that a new constitution will be in being by then, which will have to be approved by a referendum. I do not think that it will be ready in time. There is even talk that the elections might go ahead under the current constitutional arrangements. I believe that that would be a disaster. We know what happened the last time there were elections. There was widespread intimidation and fraud. It was only because of a great deal of internal and external pressure, some of which was from South Africa, that we got a result capable of sustaining itself.

The situation is changing, which we should welcome. There are useful signs for the future. I am authorised to say that Voluntary Service Overseas is intending to introduce volunteers to Zimbabwe before the end of this year, pending completion of registration in the country as a non-profit organisation. It has already signed a memorandum of understanding with the Zimbabwean Government and, following completion of the process, will be able formally to announce placements with partners in Zimbabwe. This is very good news. We should commend VSO for that and wish it well.

There are also good signs, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned, for press freedom. Some papers have been newly published and some republished. Although street vendors have been arrested for disturbing the peace when selling newspapers, some of the show trials have been abandoned. That again is good news and we ought to be happy about it.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that intimidation still goes on. The trade union movement is under persistent attack for its outspoken criticism of what is happening. Trade union leaders, such as Gertrude Hambira of the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union, have been forced to flee the country for their own safety. Also, a great many human rights violations carry on.

In all the discussions about the future position of Zimbabwe, the Southern African Development Community and the position of President Zuma in particular are absolutely critical. SADC has appointed South Africa to mediate on its behalf, but I regret that there is no evidence that South Africa is approaching the matter with any great urgency. We have to see signs of progress. The former President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, was roundly condemned, castigated and derided for his so-called silent diplomacy. Of course we know that megaphone diplomacy does not necessarily work, but I am concerned that there does not seem to be any real sense of urgency about the situation. SADC is due to meet in August this year and, although Zimbabwe will be on the agenda, it will not be the only topic. I fear that that may mean that the whole matter is sidelined. Some commentators are calling for SADC to be convened for a special meeting to decide how to deal with Zimbabwe. Again, I have to confess that I do not know whether that is necessarily the right approach, but it shows that there is a definite push to get something happening.

How are we going to deal with this? What are the Government going to do? Are they going to adopt what might be called the “in phrase” of the coalition and “consider matters afresh”? I do not quite know what that means, but it sounds good. However, there has to be a lot more than that. We need to discuss the situation urgently with President Zuma and the Government of South Africa. Has the Foreign Office made fresh approaches to President Zuma? Are there to be official discussions or is the matter simply to be left to drift?

The Conservative part of the Con-Lib Dem coalition has a special responsibility towards Zimbabwe. Perhaps I could gently remind the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who convened the Lancaster House negotiations and concluded the agreement that eventually led to the independence of Zimbabwe. That was fine, except that they also bequeathed to Zimbabwe the repressive Smith laws, which President Mugabe, when he came to office, seized on with glee to oppress his own people. I hope that the Minister recognises the historical duty that the Conservative part of the coalition has towards the people of Zimbabwe.

A lot has happened since our debate in December last year. At the time, I spoke about the publication of the report Land in Zimbabwe by the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, which has already been referred to. The introduction is headed, “Past Mistakes and Future Prospects”. The report makes four serious recommendations. The Government of the day, under the then Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, gave their response on 3 February 2010, which broadly welcomed the recommendations, especially recommendation 4, which sets out plans for the future. Douglas Alexander also referred to the fact that the World Bank was carrying out a special study of the land question in Zimbabwe and that the former Government were looking forward to seeing that report. Have the present Government looked at the report of the all-party group and discussed what is happening with the World Bank? I understand that they have not been in office for long, but I do not recall them giving the then new Government in 1997 the benefit of the doubt, saying that there was plenty of time to sort things out. I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will decide to show a real sense of urgency.

It has been said in some parts of Africa that we in Britain do not understand the land question. I had occasion to tell a high commissioner from southern Africa that the Scots certainly understand the land question, because we have long memories and we remember the 18th and 19th-century Highland clearances, when people were thrown off their land in order to provide for sheep. It was certainly as brutal as, if not more brutal than, the farmers being thrown off their land in Zimbabwe, although I do not seek to excuse what has happened in Zimbabwe by saying that. Our problem with the land has always been that the land is there to produce, and the greatest sin of the Mugabe Government in regard to the land seizures is that they took fertile land and turned it into wasteland. Land is not of value in itself; it is of value in a productive capacity to feed people. It is important and we recognise it as such.

I conclude by repeating what I said in our earlier debate:

“If we are to keep the stimulus—which is absolutely necessary—going, then unilateral action”,

by the British Government, will not be enough. I continued:

“I understand perfectly well that … the UK … has no prescriptive right to dictate to Zimbabwe what its future should be … I believe that multilateralism, within the Commonwealth especially, can move things forward ... If the Commonwealth is to be true to its goals”—

if the present Government are to be true to their goals—

“it must put a huge effort into moving things forward”.—[Official Report, 10/12/09; col. 1181.]

I commend this debate to the House.