Zimbabwe: Elections

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Oates on not only obtaining this debate but flying the flag for a better Zimbabwe. He does so not only in the Chamber but in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Zimbabwe.

My first engagement with the name “Zimbabwe” was in Liverpool in 1973, when I was attending an ecumenical religious event. I came away sporting a “Free Zimbabwe” badge, and for an idealistic young outsider like me the situation seemed a relatively simple story of good guys and bad guys. For us as liberals, Ian Smith and his regime were clearly the bad guys, so those who replaced them were the good guys—until it became clear when they took over that they were not. It was increasingly apparent that Robert Mugabe and his party were not just “not the good guys” but really rather bad guys, and so Morgan Tsvangirai and his people must be the good guys. But when they ran into difficulties in ousting Mugabe, relations within the party deteriorated and there was an unpleasant split, which was obviously going to make it more difficult to defeat Mugabe—divided oppositions are always at a disadvantage.

In 2006, I was asked to meet in South Africa leading figures in the two MDC groups that were led by Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai. That is when it became clear to me that it was not a simple picture at all, for although I was able to negotiate an agreement between the two MDC factions on how they would manage their relationship in the future, when they took it back to Morgan, he rejected it. He went on to become Prime Minister but that did not resolve relationships within the country. If it had, we would not be having this debate this afternoon. I now take the view that it is generally unwise in the context of a political division in another country to address the problem as a simple matter of bad guys who should be punished and good guys who should be assisted. When a full-scale war breaks out, a new dynamic emerges and one is often forced to take sides but, in the context of political divisions, it is often better to address the problem of the disturbed relationship between the two or more partisan groups rather than simply back one side against the other.

Britain’s policy approach towards Zimbabwe has largely been driven for many years by sanctions whose purpose, laudable enough, has been to change behaviour away from all the kinds of gross abuses so clearly and ably set out in his speech by my noble friend Lord Oates. There have been and currently are gross abuses, with the illegal undermining of the opposition through abductions, torture and indeed murder, abuse of the legal system and corruption of the political system—not just at a lower level but, as my noble friend pointed out with his quotations, even from the vice-president—and dehumanisation and incitement at the highest level.

After these very many years I ask myself, as I ask the Minister, what is the purpose of our sanctions now? If all these abuses which have been described are continuing, do Her Majesty’s Government believe that the sanctions are going to resolve the problems we are discussing? I think not. Do they have a downside? Yes, they do. They portray Britain as an old colonial power that, decades on, remains insistent on sanctions that have not worked to change things for the better but which are seen, rightly or wrongly, by many—not only among supporters of the Zimbabwean Government—as contributing to the disastrous state of the Zimbabwean economy. At the same time it is clear that Russia, and even more especially China, have been engaging with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Zimbabwe, and picking up support from them with no questions asked.

Partly as a result of that, and because of its own experience of sanctions, last month at the United Nations General Assembly we saw Zimbabwe refusing to back western sanctions against President Putin’s Russia, saying that it was opposed to them because they make complex situations worse. Instead of globalisation having broadened and deepened relationships across the world, we are now splitting into those who support Russia and China, which are the majority of states in the UN, versus those who support the United States and Europe, who may control the larger part of the global economy, at least for the present, but not necessarily the majority of the people or of the UN member states.

It seems that this requires post-Brexit Britain to review its approach to policy with Zimbabwe and other countries with which we have difficult historic relationships. In the context of Zimbabwe in particular, I would be grateful if the Minister and his colleagues would begin to review the effectiveness and value of sanctions and see whether there are other, better ways of bringing about the changes we all want to see. I appreciate that this would be a major shift of policy, and timing is of course a sensitive question too in all these things. So in addition, perhaps instead of excluding Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth we should be inviting it back, at least as a guest initially, perhaps to a CHOGM meeting, in the hope that rebuilding relationships within the Commonwealth might bring some positive peer pressure to bear and perhaps a better outcome than the sanctions, which to date have not achieved what we want.