John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I have a particular interest in Zimbabwe because my uncle was a policeman there for 20 years and I grew up reading letters from him about the situation there. As with every other policeman in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe took his pension. I suppose my uncle was one of the lucky ones. He went to South Africa and started a business and was not one of those who have been evicted from their farms and beaten up.

This is probably why, particularly at meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs in recent years, I have raised issues concerning Zimbabwe, specifically the issue of Robert Mugabe's participation in any EU-Africa conference and Ireland's participation in such a conference. I am not trying to catch anyone out, but the Minister may remember me asking him about such participation, specifically at the Committee on European Affairs. In the context of President Mugabe's attendance, I asked him if Ireland was opposed to an EU-Africa Summit due to human rights violations in Zimbabwe, which continue to deteriorate. The Minister replied:

As I said in my statement, the summit cannot take place because of the insistence on the attendance of President Mugabe. While the EU wishes to proceed with better relations with the African continent, it must be acutely aware of the situation in Zimbabwe which, as I said, is getting worse.

When I pressed the Minister on Ireland's participation at the summit, he said: "As I have stated, the position is that the EU is reluctant to proceed with such a summit and we [meaning the Irish State] are reluctant to participate because of President Mugabe's proposed attendance". Five or ten minutes ago, the Minister said we should deal with the conference on substance as opposed to attendance. That is a hell of a difference in the Minister's position.

Earlier this year, when I questioned the then Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, he replied:

Zimbabwe has been a conflict between donor countries such as us and recipient countries, and is one of the reasons the conference has not taken place to date. We take the view that it would not be especially helpful because no right-minded person could stand over what is occurring in Zimbabwe at present, and it would send all the wrong signals. A number of Deputies have expressed concerns, as have many civil society groups, about corruption and the systematic abuse of human rights, and donors and others involved in development must draw the line somewhere.

We do not even need to argue for our amendment. One only has to read what the Minister has been saying on the issue in recent years. For the last few years, he has articulated the position that we are now proposing. The Minister has continually made the case in official condemnations, expressions of concern, speeches and statements.

As an aside, I read yesterday that Zimbabwe's chief statistician has said he can no longer work out the country's inflation rate because there are not enough goods left in the shops to count. That is interesting.

It is hard to take the EU seriously either. Despite being blacklisted by the EU and barred from travelling to Europe, Portugal and the EU have granted President Mugabe a visa for the forthcoming conference. In his speech, the Minister said it became clear that no alternative was possible, but we should have opposed the visa for President Mugabe's attendance at that conference. It is something we could and should have done. The Minister has taken the wrong decision on this issue. Based on what he has been saying about President Mugabe and this conference, it is fair to say the Minister's opposition has changed dramatically, for whatever reason.

See this speech in context