Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the conditions that prevail in Zimbabwe and support what I understood to be an agreed motion condemning the behaviour of the country's president, Robert Mugabe. President Mugabe should have been confronted long ago on many issues, particularly in respect of human rights. It is a very long time since he was received on a visit to Ireland. When a very young person raised the question of his treatment of the gay community in Zimbabwe, nobody offered support.

We are all in agreement on certain issues and it would be a great pity if this were not acknowledged beyond this House. We are in agreement that there have been grave violations of human rights and of the civil process in terms of the participation of and respect for the rights of the opposition in Zimbabwe. We are in agreement on the destructive economic actions of the regime, particularly on the poor. We are, I hope, in agreement that we should sustain our attempts to continue to provide aid and ensure it is delivered where it is most needed. We have a responsibility to place everything that has happened in context. I regret I cannot support the amendment because we must make a choice as to how best we can advance the case we are making on human rights, the civil process, the proper conduction of the elections and the structure of civil society.

The confrontation with President Mugabe must be moved to the top of the agenda and this requires our presence at the Africa-EU summit. If one abstains, one follows Prime Minister Gordon Brown and simply makes President Mugabe the centre of an important summit. The issues that arise in Africa are incredibly important, including the destruction of the environment, in respect of which the pastoral families are perhaps the worst affected. It is unfair on 49 of the 50 African countries to say the issues that affect them — the environment, aid, trade, debt and the international economic order — cannot be discussed. The decision on which we are divided is how best to proceed.

All the aforementioned issues are important for the entire Continent of Africa. President Mugabe should be confronted very seriously, including by his neighbours. South Africa has been entirely insufficient in respect of the pressure it has put on President Mugabe. It was very late in the day that he was first condemned, and this was by someone who was less than a full Cabinet Minister. I do not accept the argument that South Africa is a new nation on the block or that one's neighbour should be handled with kid gloves. There are issues of human rights to be considered, bearing in mind that South Africa's independence and current position are founded on the vindication of the rights of a population. The same should apply to Zimbabwe.

People will excuse me for being somewhat cynical regarding Prime Minister Gordon Brown's position. During the long history of Britain's relationship with Zimbabwe, there was a cynical breach of the Lancaster House agreements. While it is certainly true that President Mugabe's party was abusing the process for the reallocation of land, it is also true that the British Government failed in its commitments regarding what would facilitate transitions in Zimbabwe.

Anyone who has studied election fraud in different Continents has found evidence that most fraud of this kind takes place in the registration process. The Canadian Bar Association, for example, in its handbook put the figure at approximately 70%. This means election observers need to be put in place very early. One also needs to be able to confront the registration process because observing on polling day or immediately afterwards is of very limited value. If one is to make the case as to how best to confront fraud during the registration process and how best to observe the elections, one must ask whether this can be achieved through a meeting of the European Union with its African neighbours. Is this not the most positive approach?

I am anxious that there be the widest possible consensus in the House in condemning President Mugabe so as to address the needs of the poorest people in Zimbabwe, who are carrying the brunt of his oppression. I seek consensus in putting pressure on Zimbabwe's neighbours to bring about changes in the country. One can do this best by putting the issue in the context of general African issues. There is no doubt that anybody who considers the effects of climate change will note that its impact on the African Continent is overwhelmingly greater than that on other Continents. It is equally true that the rush on the cities through urbanisation and the migration problems are more serious in Africa than elsewhere. On the rush to sign economic partnership agreements, there is a real difficulty regarding the imbalance of power between the European Union and Africa.

Reference was made to China's relationship with Africa. It is very important that there be a human rights element to the development model, which in turn should govern the trade model. Aid, trade and odious debt, which is often incurred by dictators, some of whom are no longer on the Continent of Africa, form a wide context involving 50 countries with considerable issues. It would be a great pity if President Mugabe were to dislodge the general discussion in this regard. I hope we are all able to agree to condemn the economic havoc being wreaked on the lives of people in Zimbabwe, the social impact of the political regime on housing and the abuse of a people by somebody who has betrayed the post-colonial opportunities of the country. We should do so in the context of wanting to see a better, deeper and fairer relationship between the European Union and Africa. I strongly support the motion on behalf of the Labour Party but regret that I cannot support the amendment.

See this speech in context