Press Conference - Prime Minister of New Zealand

Media Interview
Media Centre
Ms Helen Clark
Monday, 4 March 2002

QUESTION: The reports this morning are that Chris Laidlaw (phonetic) and Bruce Middleson (phonetic) have been intimidated and threatened at the polling booths in Zimbabwe. Have you heard of that at all? If so, what was the situation?

MS CLARK: I had heard that Bruce Middleson was jostled around his car, and it would be completely in line with what we are hearing about the general level of intimidation around these elections.

QUESTION: Is that changing the whole of what is happening on this retreat at the moment?

MS CLARK: Apparently not. There are very different views about what is happening in Zimbabwe. We hold the view that the Zimbabwe state has repressive power, which it is using to intimidate people against voting for the opposition. Other people don't seem to take that as seriously.

QUESTION: When you say jostled, what sort of level of physical attack-?

MS CLARK: I understand that it was in the nature of a roughing up around the car. I haven't heard any more details than that. Obviously that is deplorable. Observers go in, they are neutral people, they are there on behalf of the Commonwealth, and they should not be subjected to any intimidation.

QUESTION: Can you describe just how yesterday's retreat went in terms of output with new groups? Were they divisive? We have heard that it was quite volatile.

MS CLARK: People spoke their minds. I certainly spoke mine, which I think is in line with what New Zealanders feel when they see an election where the opposition is constantly intimidated, treason charges are talked about, people are roughed up and there have been a lot of deaths. We think the people of Zimbabwe should be able to speak. It is rather hard to speak in these circumstances.

QUESTION: Jonathan Moyo yesterday was basically accusing Britain, New Zealand, Canada and Australia of being racist.

MS CLARK: I thought one of the most interesting perspectives on what's happening is coming from the Pacific region generally, where Fiji was suspended from the Commonwealth for events which certainly included a coup but had far less violence, level of violence than we have seen in Zimbabwe. What the Pacific states are asking is: are there two standards here, one for the Pacific, one for Africa; what's going on?

QUESTION: That view has been expressed; is that true?

MS CLARK: That view is being expressed quite forcefully.

QUESTION: Mr Chretien suggested last night that the position on Zimbabwe would be out today. Is that your understanding?

MS CLARK: There is an unscheduled session of the retreat this morning. It could go over into the afternoon. It would be a question of whether Mr Howard wants to wait until the final communique or whether he wants to brief media with the support of the leaders this morning or this evening.

QUESTION: What is your view of the Canadian proposal?

MS CLARK: I haven't seen anything in writing from the Canadians at this point. I think the bottom line is that there is agreement that the Commonwealth observer group will report back and that action will be taken as appropriate on that report. New Zealand thinks Zimbabwe should have been suspended weeks ago. That hasn't happened and it is not going to happen at this Commonwealth. But the very least you would expect to happen is strong action in the light of evidence that there is not a full and fair election.

QUESTION: I understand that the Canadian proposal, though, still requires complete consensus of the observers if it is decided that the elections weren't free and fair. From what you are saying now, that doesn't even seem possible.

MS CLARK: We are some way from consensus here and, from New Zealand's point of view, we are not prepared to join a consensus which doesn't get us anywhere.

QUESTION: Would it be a consensus that gave you the kind of policy that we have heard of: a two- or four-week absolute deadline, with sanctions to be imposed of some kind or another if the election was not fair? Would that be acceptable to you-

MS CLARK: What we are looking for is the Commonwealth observer group to report, that report to be considered and action to be taken, as required and in line with the Millbrook Declaration and the updated principles from the High Level Review Group.

QUESTION: Who would decide, though, the action to be taken? Is it CHOGM as a whole or just a small group of countries?

MS CLARK: It is hard for CHOGM as a whole to take a decision only once every two years, and so it is a question now of whether the mandate rests with the ministerial election group, which I personally think by and large has done a good job, or whether it is kicked upstairs to a group of leaders.

QUESTION: Is there a problem in deciding between those two at all-or will there be a problem?

MS CLARK: Not necessarily a problem, and either is acceptable to us. What would be of concern is, having kicked it upstairs to either group, if in the evidence of far less than free and fair elections nothing was done.

QUESTION: So it could be the situation that somewhere down the track, if CMAG or whoever deals with this aspect decides not to take sanctions, New Zealand and, say, Britain and Australia would take sanctions away from the Commonwealth?

MS CLARK: New Zealand's already signaled that, if the outcome of the election is that it is a stitch-up, we reserve our right to take sanctions as the European Union already has.

QUESTION: Do you think that is the likely outcome: each country deliberates on the results and that it is everyone for themselves?

MS CLARK: If the Commonwealth will not move as a group, then it is everyone for themselves. But I think what I feel about this is an enormous amount of sadness because President Mugabe came to power after concerted action by the Commonwealth to ensure that minority rule in Zimbabwe was overcome. He came to power with the goodwill of everyone here. And now it's as if he is free to break all the rules and values that the Commonwealth stands for.

QUESTION: But if you go it alone, then it is critical (inaudible)

MS CLARK: The thing with having a Commonwealth is that over time you hope that everyone will embrace the standards of democracy, rule of law and constitutionality that the Commonwealth stands for. It looks like we are not going to cross that bridge completely at this CHOGM.

QUESTION: When you are talking about New Zealand's sanctions, are you talking about targeted sanctions against Mugabe and members of his regime specifically, or in a broader sense?

MS CLARK: It remains to be seen what specific form it would take-and I might say that we still live in hope that there might be an election which produced a result which was acceptable.

QUESTION: But the Commonwealth (Inaudible) is there a realistic one?

MS CLARK: It is very, very difficult. I understand that up to 1½ million voters have been disenfranchised one way or another, and Mr Mugabe passed new laws before this election which enable the state to intimidate even more than before. There are paramilitary youths who are moving around the countryside, breaking up opposition rallies, roughing people up. The police apparently turn a blind eye to it. It is really a question of how much more evidence do we want. If despite all that Mr Mugabe loses, we would say that the Zimbabwe people are being incredibly brave, but the jury is out on what will happen.

QUESTION: Seeko Holland (phonetic) said that there were something like 4,000 undeclared polling booths. Have you heard of that?

MS CLARK: I do not know whether the polling booths are undeclared. What I do know is that the Commonwealth's few observers cannot possibly cover all the polling booths. So we are in a position where, with the best will in the world, the Commonwealth cannot see everything that's going on.

QUESTION: What chance do you think there is that it will be acceptable?

MS CLARK: I think what will happen is that there will be a document produced, which is a bottom line.

ENDS