Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I wish to share time with my colleague who has experience in Africa of both a practical and a political kind, Deputy Joan Burton.

I welcome the fact the House has been able to agree on a joint motion on Zimbabwe. In the ten minutes speaking time I have allowed myself I want to make a few points about the importance of this motion.

It is very important that when we are discussing Zimbabwe we consider the full context. There is no doubt that when one looks at the Continent of Africa one can see the marks of the decolonisation project that are deep and injurious. We should allow ourselves for a moment to look also at the transition to black rule in Zimbabwe in the immediate post-independence era, one in which there were considerable broken undertakings given by Lancaster House and the British — the land issue being one example. I do not have the time to go into detail but for the militants who originally supported Robert Mugabe, or those who supported Joshua Nkomo, the expectation of land was significant. The former colonial power that was to have assisted the transition by the funding of land transfer, broke its promise and this is significant. I am not saying this explains any of the current actions but it is important to note it. Neither is it true to say that Ireland does not have a colonial connection with what was Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe. I have often heard the extreme white anti-African argument made by people who are Irish. I acknowledge there are Irish people who wish to contribute to the post-independent Zimbabwe who are obstructed from doing so and this is a great tragedy and a great loss to the people of Zimbabwe.

It is important to remember there is nothing essentially African about the situation in Zimbabwe. Africa is not a crisis-prone continent. It is very various in its experience and in its capacities. It is also important to realise that Robert Mugabe is not typical of Africa. There is nothing essentially African or cultural about anything that has happened. What has happened has been a clear abuse of power that has visited widespread horrific damage on the people of Zimbabwe. It has moved from conditions where it produced a food surplus. In the last studies of the period 2000-05, there was an increase in agricultural production in many of the west African countries of over 10%, some 80% of it brought about by smallholders, many working with a hoe. Zimbabwe, on the other hand, along with a number of countries, including, unfortunately, Malawi and other similar countries, had zero or decreased growth in agricultural production. There are issues of food security and food production and the economy which has fallen into chaos, which are all important in terms of the hardship being visited on ordinary people. The drift of people from their rural holdings to the city, the destruction of what were called unauthorised ghettoes and so forth has been done with absolute ferocity and with no respect for human rights or law.

The biggest single issue facing us is whether the run-off in the final stage of the election will be able to take place in conditions of peace and non-violence. The Minister's speech and others point immediately to the loss of life that has occurred, the intimidation, the injuries, the forcing of people into exile and the use of intimidation and thugs to effect the right to vote freely. I repeat what I said in the previous motion, no model of sovereignty justifies what is taking place in Zimbabwe. As I said in my previous contribution it points to the need for such activity at the level of the United Nations, by way of an initiative to eliminate the Security Council bloc towards taking the kind of UN monitoring initiatives that are clearly necessary.

I remain deeply disappointed by the activities of South Africa so far in terms of Zimbabwe. It was very late in the list of atrocities committed by Robert Mugabe that one senior Minister from South Africa made comment. It was not the South African Prime Minister and it was not from the top. The South African Government may say privately they were new people on the block and so felt inhibited commenting on somebody who had been a leader and throwing off the shackles of colonialism. That does not justify inaction in any sense.

Following what I hope will be a peaceful run-off of the election — although I am not optimistic — in regard to the recovery of the Zimbabwean economy and the social distribution side of that economy, an entirely new model, quite different from the IMF model or a bank-funded model will be necessary. It is interesting that in 2007 the World Bank has acknowledged that it neglected agriculture as an important tool of economic transformation in Africa. It is also true that the imposition of macro economic models from the top had the effect of making insecure the seed programmes and the micro credit that had existed. This, together with the refusal to allow people to impose tariffs to allow local food to be produced, as well as the obstruction of subsidies for fertiliser and so on, have all worked against the livelihood of ordinary people of Africa. We will have other occasions, I hope, to discuss this issue, particularly when we move on to WTO talks in Geneva or elsewhere about the need for an integrated approach.

This agreed and important motion is one that stresses the use of our contacts in Southern Africa, particularly with the aid community with whom we have a relationship. In regard to the importance of election observation, I urge the new Minister for Foreign Affairs to ask his colleague Ministers in the European Union and those outside it to look differently at election observation. I have repeatedly said that the academic work in this area shows that 70% to 80% of all the abuses in elections take place in the registration process, either in the refusal to allow people to register, as is the case in many countries, or in intimidation. For example, in some countries women were not allowed to get an identity card which stopped them from going on the register.

There is a need for a comprehensive approach to election observation that will be long term and will be at the beginning of the process. What is important now, unique to some extent and particular to Zimbabwe, is an international presence that will ensure some form of protection against intimidation. This, probably, can be best achieved by the regional bodies and would be particularly good if South Africa upped the ante and invited countries such as Ireland and others to provide election observers. I would urge our Government to tell the South African Government and the SADC that it is willing to provide international observers for the run-off. I fought for the right of parliamentarians and former parliamentarians to be involved in the election observation process and I have done it myself in a number of different places. I actually see the business of arriving for polling day and for the count for a few days afterwards as quite minuscule; it is gestural rather than real. It is another area outlined in my previous proposal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We should have lots of fellowships on real election observation linked to the civil process so that people are given the right to organise their parties. This is already happening through the Olof Palme institute from Sweden and through several different foundations where parties are enabled to come into existence, get organised, deal with the media, be democratic and so forth. We should take these worst of circumstances as an opportunity to set up new models so that we can make an effective contribution. I say that in a non-partisan way. I assure the House it is based on my own experience in Cambodia, Africa and elsewhere.

See this speech in context