Back to Index

Transcript of 'Hot Seat' interview on sanctions with Glenys Kinnock, Peter Murphy & Grace Kwinjeh
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
September 04, 2007

http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat130907.htm

Violet Gonda: The issue of the controversial restrictions or targeted sections imposed on members of the Mugabe regime by western countries is the topic on the program Hot Seat this week. My guests are: British member of the European parliament and Co-President of the ACP/EU joint parliamentary assembly Glenys Kinnock, veteran Australian activist Peter Murphy, who works with the Information Centre in Sydney and opposition official Grace Kwinjeh. Let me start with Glenys. Can you clarify which sanctions have been imposed by the European Union?

Glenys Kinnock: Well the last decision was on the 23rd of April of this year when the visa ban list was extended and the asset freeze and arms embargo was maintained and also a commitment to continuing the humanitarian assistance in direct support of the population of course.

The common refrain that we hear is that 'the so-called sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe have accelerated the economic crisis and brought suffering for the population' but of course the EU has not imposed economic or trade sanctions against Zimbabwe . They are targeted sanctions against individuals and they are measures, which are designed not to cause hardships to the Zimbabwean people. Although people like me would certainly like to see those measures extended and increased in order that we can have more effect upon the regime at this critical time.

Violet: And Peter what about the sanctions that have imposed by the Australian Government, can you clarify what they are exactly?

Peter Murphy: They are very similar to what Glenys has just explained to you because the Australian Government has worked along with the European Union and the British Government in particular on this politics of Zimbabwe . So the sanctions here are called 'Smart Sanctions' and they are purely on travel to and from Australia by the 132 permanent members of the Mugabe regime. And recently we were able to get a sort of extension of that or deepening of it because we were able to stop these 132 individuals funding some of their relatives to be students in Australia . So it's completely oriented to the personal comfort of the core of the regime and it's absolutely got nothing to do with the economic crisis that the poor people in Zimbabwe are suffering.

Violet: Now some of the relatives that have been included are children of ZANU PF minister. Is it fair though to penalize the children?

Peter: These are adults, first of all and they are benefiting from the plundering of the patrimony of the Zimbabwean people. And their parents are using the foreign exchange margins they've got to take enormously profitable transactions and they transfer some of that to their relatives in Australia . And at the same time they are denouncing all the western countries where they are actually sending their children for education. And the other irony or insult is that hundreds of thousands of young Zimbabwe people can't get an education at all because of the crisis.

Glenys: I absolutely agree and I would really like to see obviously, particularly it would affect the UK , and I would argue that it's something the UK could unilaterally decide to do. Which would be to say that the children and the young people with family connection to ZANU PF leaders should not be staying in private expensive boarding schools in Britain or university whilst people are suffering so much in Zimbabwe . This is completely unacceptable!

Violet: And Grace what are you're thoughts on this because some have asked; ' what is the logic of putting the children of these ZANU PF ministers on the travel ban.' And some have even gone as far as saying; 'It's immoral, why should children be punished for their fathers' sins.' What do you say about this?

Grace Kwinjeh: Well basically on the issue of children Violet if am hearing you correctly, I think that the real sanctions have been played against the people of Zimbabwe . I think that real sanctions have been played against the suffering students in Zimbabwe. Look at the education system in Zimbabwe that has completely collapsed right know, look at the state of the Universities around the countries. In fact I think that the real sanctions have been put in place by the ruling elite.

I will give you an example of here in South Africa: where at the University of KwaZulu Natal , 30 students who are studying on the basis of a "Presidential Scholarship." They are spending over a million Rands on them alone per year. And then you look at the program that they are doing, these are programs that are available in Zimbabwe. You look at the issue of foreign currency; we have a big shortage of foreign currency in Zimbabwe. And then you look at the state of the University of Zimbabwe were 13,000 students could be benefiting a lot from that money.

So I think it's a moral issue for those institutions to refuse to take those children in and I also think that the targeted sanctions have really been symbolic they are nothing compared to what Peter and Glenys can confirm, was happening in the Sixties and Seventies campaigns. We have not even gone into sports boycotts. Another danger we are faced with is also that they are going to use the sanctions issue to divert attention from the real issues in Zimbabwe such as the coming elections and the fact that the rigging has already started.

Violet: Now Peter if children are beneficiaries of what has been deprived off Zimbabweans, there are some who say if you are going to be consistent you should include tycoons like Charles Davy, (John) Bredenkamp, (Nicholas) Van Hoogstraten as they are in business arrangements with the despotic regime. How would you answer that?

Peter: We are strongly in favour of that and we have requested our Government to extend the same sanctions to encompass those big business men who are also part of the core of the regime. These people are really strongly supporting the ongoing operations of the Mugabe government, so we strongly endorse that idea.

Violet: And Glenys, what's the EU position on this?

Glenys: I think that we need to do far more to make it clear that further coercive measures will be taken against the Mugabe regime. They need to understand that there is a political and economic cost of continuing to behave in the way they do. And that does mean renewing and expanding the targeted sanctions to business people responsible for financing the ZANU PF regime, including of course the principle beneficiaries of the graft and corruption that we see taking place in that country.

And also think additional measures should be include rescinding rights of residency in Europe and access to family member, as we said to education institutions but also to employments because we know who these bad men are and I think that they have to be expected to pay the price. Not the people of Zimbabwe . They are paying that already. And also I think, Violet, it's time to really name and shame organizations or businesses in Zimbabwe or in Europe who connive in ZANU PF activities and that would include exposing to shareholders the international banks and financial houses which act as conduits for these corrupt earnings.

We need to expose them, we need to make it clear that this is going on and I think this could also include exposing foreign governments who are helping to finance the regime. So there is lots of thing that we should be doing, which we are not doing and which would not help the regime but on the contrary make it more difficult for them.

Violet: And Glenys still on this particular issue, how would you deal with the Charles Davy issue for example? His daughter Chelsea Davy is Prince Harry's girlfriend . . .

Glenys: ya

Violet: . . . and if her father is added on the sanctions list, what then is the difference between Chelsea Davy and the other ZANU PF cronies' kids?

Glenys: Well none. I think that it would have to be fairly done and decisions would have to be made on the basis of those business people who had benefited and who have subsequently left the country but maintained contact with the country. In whatever way, whether it's him or anyone else I don think it should make any difference at all and they should be identified.

Violet: And Peter what would the Australian government do if Chelsea visited Australia with her boyfriend Prince Harry and the father was on the sanctions list?

Peter: Well I don't know what they would do about Chelsea . Getting her father on the sanctions list is the first step. That would still be a big step for Australia 's government to take. We here have been also pushing for consideration of other aspects of business dealings with Zimbabwe because one of the few sectors of that economy doing any good is the mining export sector and big Australian based companies like the BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are active in it.

Mainly I think exporting products to China. We know that that they are having fabulous levels of profits at the moment but if they had a moratorium on these exports for six months and just maintained their operations there on a care and maintenance basis and paid their workforce they wouldn't even notice it.

But at this stage they are involved really in an unethical business arrangement with the Mugabe government and we are urging them to realize what they are doing and for our government to urge them to seize operations for a period.

Glenys: I mean one of the things, Violet that occurs to me listening to Peter know is that we need to co-ordinate our efforts much more than we probably do. Those of us who are actively engaged in trying to identify these individuals in these companies and perhaps we need to do a lot more collaborative work and cooperative work with the Australians, Americans, Europeans and others. I don't know what Peter thinks or Grace. I think that that would be a benefit in the case that we need to make.

Violet: And Grace, what are your thoughts on this and also you know the SADC heads of state have called on western countries to remove the sanctions. Do you think they should be lifted at this particular time?

Grace: No I don't think so Violet, until there are proper or concrete changes that have been done or reforms made by the government of Zimbabwe. If you look at the European Union side, for example, as Glenys has been explaining: Zimbabwe when signing the Cotonou agreement, agreed to the conditions to do with issues of the rule of law and governance. And so those are the issues in Zimbabwe today that are the biggest problem. And so I think that until the government of Zimbabwe shows signs of reforming - unfortunately after the SADC summit, after the endorsement at SADC we are going in the reverse. Look at the constitutional amendments that are now being put through in the parliament. Look at the fact that the violence is continuing unabated. So instead of sanctions being lifted there is actually need for more pressure to be put on the government of Zimbabwe.

Violet: Are you surprised though that Mugabe has been able to twist the sanctions issue and claiming that the sanctions are responsible for causing the starvation in the country, Grace?

Grace: Well I am not surprised at all and I don't think anybody is surprised with what is happening in Zimbabwe or at SADC level. I think that part of the problem we are now experiencing is that SADC as a bloc has actually pre-empted the mood for the responses to the elections that are going to be held in March and basically they are going to be with Mugabe. They know the issue in Zimbabwe is not about sanctions. They know what the real problems in Zimbabwe are, but unfortunately they needed an excuse and the excuse has been that about sanctions.

Let's say for instance the sanctions are lifted tomorrow; do you mean to tell me that Mugabe is going to repeal POSA? Is he going to really give the MDC access to the public media? Is he going to disarm the military in various institutions and parastatals? I do not think so.

But I think SADC as a body has failed the people of Zimbabwe particularly South Africa . South Africa knows what sanctions are and what the functions are. (President Thabo) Mbeki himself stayed in the United Kingdom campaigning for economic sanctions against the then apartheid regime. So he knows the context of sanctions and he knows that in the Zimbabwean case it is not like that. But unfortunately it's a club of dictators and a club of patriarchs who are not waking up to our generational reality that 'Look we need better leaders who have a conscience, who are more responsible to the suffering masses.'

Violet: And, Glenys, some have said cut aid to Mugabe's apologists in SADC and the UK MP Kate Hoey - who chairs the All Party Parliamentary group in Zimbabwe - said recently that the International community needs to get tough on SADC leaders and she called for the British government to actually cut off aid for Mugabe and those who support him. Do you agree with this?

Glenys: I don't think Kate is saying we should cut off aid to Zambia , Mozambique , Tanzania or South Africa or any other countries that have been making comments. And that certainly would not be under the European Union's relationship and partnership under the Cotonou agreement, as Grace said, and that would not be appropriate or desirable, I don't think.

But this whole business of claiming, which the member states in SADC have fallen behind this idea - that the economic crisis is somehow the fault of the European Union because the suffering of the people is because of the economic sanctions. This is such a gross mis-representation of the truth because for instance the humanitarian assistance given to the people of Zimbabwe by the EU has absolutely continued. Not in a structured way that it should have if we didn't have problems with the rule of law and democracy but in the last 2 years at least 300 million euros has been going to even building schools, helping with teachers, working with the Ministry of Education. So it's absolutely untrue. And Savio Michele (sp) the head of the EU delegation in Harare will confirm this; that every possible effort is being made to try to alleviate the effects on the people in Zimbabwe and the reasons for that suffering is of course the regime which rides rough shoulder with the people's rights.

Violet: So, Peter what really are these sanctions supposed to achieve? I mean is it to punish the regime or is it regime change?

Peter: It's really aimed at sending a message to the Mugabe regime that the international community does not at all accept their policies and to will continue for them to be changed. It's a message for other heads of government in Africa especially in SADC that it's not viable to continue supporting Mugabe's policies. That change in a democratic direction has to take place. It's really symbolic at that level.

It's also a message to the people of Zimbabwe who are suffering terribly that they are not forgotten. That people do care about what is happening to them and are trying to do something to change it. I think in those levels these actions have been good. But, you know, the way SADC have actually performed and of course the way Mugabe's government is responding, is absolutely a scandal and the government policies are just deepening a very serious humanitarian crisis - one of the worst in the world today. So the people of Zimbabwe I believe are still waiting for solid leadership to emerge from among themselves to change the situation and they feel hope in the international community. So we do have to try and find more things to do as Glenys has spelt out. More things need to be done.

Glenys: I think Peter is absolutely right and this is what we continuously say as Europeans, Australians or wherever else we are is that the key is actually held by Southern Africa . And they must publicly acknowledge that the reality is this great liberation leader has perverted everything that's been achieved into what is a tyranny. And all the liberation credentials have been called into question and it's so dishonest not to acknowledge this and it's time I think Zimbabwe's neighbours took stork and say it's time to acknowledge the crisis is not actually about land and that it is about bad governance. And if they don't acknowledge this fact how do they intend to explain the deterioration of the situation under Mugabe.

So you know the whole thing needs to be much more honestly dealt with and we need to get democratic legitimacy to a future government and that means an election. And the idea that we will have a free and fair democratic process is of course one, which will fly in the face of all the facts that we are aware of.

Violet: But haven't the sanctions actually created a kind fraternity of criminal ruling elite, you know, who are unified and less susceptible to western pressure for good governments?

Glenys: I think obviously they are unified and this will always happen. I mean sanctions are always very blunt instruments and I would never argue for them to be the panacea for dealing with despotic regimes. But South Africa of all countries must understand - of course they do - that sanctions were very important for them and that included sporting and cultural sort of sanctions as well as economic sanctions and trade sanctions. They were very tough ones and there is no question as Peter has suggested that we could get any of that past anybody in our Governments now - that kind of strong response. But really we cannot ignore the situation and think that in time it will go away or that we will get tired of this. This is the kind of feeling perhaps that those who criticise the regime will get tired of it and you know they could just carry on as they are. But we need to do more to make sure that there is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

Violet: And Grace, what has been the interpretation of these sanctions in Africa, because some say that they could have shored up support for Mugabe and some Africans interpreting this as a kind of apartheid that says; 'we don't want you black people here.' Is this perhaps why the black Africans are asking for the sanctions to be lifted? What are your thoughts on this?

Grace: Silence

Violet: Hallo, Grace?

Grace: Silence

Violet: Ohh, I think we lost Grace because her battery was low; I will have to get her later. But what do you think of that Peter?

Peter: Well, what can I say. I think that what's coming is an election in March next year which will be designed by Mugabe to wipe out the opposition completely. We are looking down a barrel of a disaster because of the inability of the leaders of Southern Africa to stand up for the rhetoric that they mouth about democracy, transparency and good governance.

I don't think it's viable for them to go that way however we could have an even bigger disaster in Zimbabwe than we are seeing today. One, which will really rock the regime much more than is happening now. And one which will demand serious action and I know that inside South Africa there are many leaders speaking out very strongly for a change of direction in the policy of the South African government.

So, you know I wish all power to them because they are acting out of a sense of genuine human solidarity. This is what we want to build up, you know, in Australia we are able to do what we've done about Zimbabwe because way back in the late 60's and early 70's we fought for sporting boycotts against apartheid. This is really the impulse that is still at work here and we will not stop agitating and taking action where we can to really press all the leaders of Southern Africa . We really think this matter must go to the UN Security Council for a decisive global voice to speak out for change in Zimbabwe. You know I am appalled at the behaviour of the SADC leaders but they will not stand in the way in the end of a democratic shift.

Violet: And Glenys given the extent of abuse, why aren't there aggressive international measures to deal with rogue states and their leadership. You know like legal measures where if a dictator came to some of the EU countries or went to Australia they could be charged under international laws. Why isn't there such a measure?

Glenys: Well we do have a measure to punish now through the International Criminal Court, that has been a big step forward in terms of dealing with these people but it's after the event, and of course that is not what you're saying. At this time of course we know that in spite of the fact that Mugabe is on the visa ban list from the European Union, I know he will be attending the EU Africa summit to be held in Lisbon in December. And this of course is something that really is very difficult to grasp when you have this Cotonou agreement which is really a wonderful contractual binding agreement between 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific counties and Europe and it is about the rule of law, democracy and human rights an yet he will come strutting through the meeting rooms of this major summit and with the total connivance of all the African countries who threaten to jettison the whole thing if he doesn't come. But we haven't touched on this whole issue but I think it is the critical one that is looming.

What I would, Violet, very much like to see is that heads of state from European Union countries say that they would not be comfortable with this. They will not want to stop the summit going ahead but they personally would not feel it is appropriate for them to attend. And that would really show that Europe is at least serious to that extent even though the Portuguese will, I am sure, issue an invitation to Mugabe to come.

Violet: It also seems ordinary Zimbabweans are fighting a double battle. Unfortunately the struggle has a certain dynamic, which is different or difficult to fight. On the one hand they are fighting Mugabe and on the other hand it seems they are fighting the rest of the world. Public opinion is that western countries are kicking everyone out. There are record numbers of Zimbabweans who are being denied visas in the UK. And so people ask if you have considered the propaganda value because if you recognise there is a problem in Zimbabwe why aren't we seeing it being translated into a more receptive immigration policy on Zimbabwe?

Glenys: I absolutely agree. I can't tell you how many Zimbabwean cases I deal with in my day-to-day work. Sometimes it is quite unbelievable when people with this strong history connection with the MDC are frightened to be returned back to Zimbabwe but somehow people decide that they are not in any danger. But I am hoping that we will know see some relaxation of this position.

Violet: And Peter, from the Australian side what are your thoughts on this? Canada has a moratorium on Zimbabwe, is it possible to have the same situation in Australia ?

Peter: I think the policy here is different already and there are a lot of Zimbabweans here able to get permanent residency rather than leave the country when their studies are finished for instance. But there really is as far as I know not been any cases of Zimbabwean asylum seekers being deported from Australia . So I hope that stays because there have been other groups of people that suffer in Australia as asylum seekers but it seems like Zimbabweans haven't and that is good.

Glenys: The issue, Peter as you know with Britain, is that Britain is seen as leading this great opposition and me as somebody British is seen as typical of this and I am on the visa ban list that Zimbabwe has in place. But you know it's just because Britain is connected with its colonial past it makes it in a way quite difficult. But also I think that more important we have a humane approach to asylum seeker as you have (in Australia ).

Peter: Well, I am with Glenys altogether there and I have been watching the media reports of the policy of deporting Zimbabwean asylum seekers from Britain and I am appalled at it and I can't put the two together very well in my head. So I really do hope that as this debate gets sharper and I hope the new British Prime Minister takes a firm stance about the Portugal invitation and that they will also be a shift in the asylum seekers.

Glenys: I hope so and we should use this Lisbon summit I think as an opportunity to refocus on Zimbabwe and to ask some of the salient questions leading up to that event and certainly now many of us in the Parliament including Portuguese colleagues of mine in the European Parliament are expressing concern about the prospects of him coming to talk about the EU's relationship with Africa.

And of course we have President Bashir and others with pretty bad records as well, but in terms of the visa ban list and the legal obligations that we have I think Zimbabwe has a very unique position in all of this.

Violet: And finally, sanctions could make things difficult for a new political formation to implement programs. Now will the international community actually sponsor a reconstruction program in Zimbabwe?

Glenys: As far as EU is concerned, absolutely yes. The commitment is there. As soon as the situation has changed or a commitment to change is made then the relaxation will take place that's how it works under Cotonou there are clear ways of moving forward into opening up and beginning normal relations.

But that means dealing with this culture of systematic abuse and corruption, violence and mismanagement by the ruling party. I think we have to start saying that in turn we will not ignore the culture of impunity that is being spawned by ZANU PF, because if we do then what we will see is more and more people dying of AIDS, more and more orphans. So much suffering every statistic in the book, which is grotesque you can apply to Zimbabwe now.

So we really, really have to make very, very strong stand and Britain will do it but it needs the support of other member states of the European Union, the Germans and others to come on board and hopefully we will see that happening.

Peter: Well I think it is premature to talk about the reconstruction programme although I know people are thinking about it. I know both sides of government and opposition here in Australia are very passionate really about trying to help the people of Zimbabwe recover from this disaster. But as I said, I think the politics is running against this at the moment and if the international community can help the people of Zimbabwe turn it around. So that is really my big worry.

Glenys: I just want to add a bit to what Peter said which is absolutely right. This whole new practice and policy of engagements with these kind of regimes like the Sudanese, the Burmese and so on. If you talk to them and you are nice to them you will get change - you know you have to be realistic! It ain't gonna happen!

Peter: yes.

Glenys: So I think there are very clear parameters that have to be set. We will not reinstate business as usual until such time as there is a clear change of direction and there is no sign of that.

Violet Gonda: We have come to the end of the programme. Unfortunately because of phone problems we lost Grace Kwinjeh (South Africa). I would like to thank EU MP Glenys Kinnock (in Belgium) and Peter Murphy in Australia for joining us on the programme Hot Seat.

Audio interview can be heard on SW Radio Africa 's Hot Seat programme (04 September 07). Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com

NB: SW Radio Africa is back on MULTIPLE frequencies. Broadcasts are between 7:00 and 9:00 pm Zimbabwe time on shortwave; in the 25m band 11775kHz, 11810kHz, 12035kHz and in the 60m band 4880kHz. Also via the internet at www.swradioafrica.com

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP