Media Conference: Zimbabwe

Media Centre Conference Room
Speakers: Mr Howard, Mr McKinnon
Monday, 4 March 2002

MR HOWARD: Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the issue of Zimbabwe has come under a lot of discussion at this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I have distributed with the Secretary-General a statement which records the conclusions of the heads of government. The essence is that heads of government have agreed that we await the election in Zimbabwe and we get the report of the Observer Group. If that report is adverse, full authority has been given to myself as the new chairman in office, the former chairman in office - that is, the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki - and the future chairman in office, the President of Nigeria, General Obasanjo. The authority has given to us to determine on behalf of the Commonwealth a response to that adverse report. In determining that response, we will be instructed entirely by the Harare principles and also the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Program, which, as you know, ranges from collective disapproval to suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth.

This has not been an easy issue. There is a range of views. Strong feelings are held. But what the Commonwealth has decided upon is not something that pushes it off to the nether-nether. If in fact there is an adverse report, it provides a mechanism. That mechanism is that a report will be received by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General will, of course, consult closely with the three of us. Then a decision will be taken in accordance with the principles laid down in the Harare agreement and the Millbrook Action Plan.

There certainly was lengthy discussion. We received and discussed the report of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. During the discussion there was a great deal of analysis of the history of the various forces at work in Zimbabwe. A very clear consensus emerged from the meeting that, whatever may be the varying thoughts on the CMAG agreement, because the election is in six days, we should of course appeal to everybody within Zimbabwe for a fair and open election and for those involving themselves in violence to desist. But, having done that, we should lay down a plan of action that would resolve the issue of Zimbabwe's status in relation to the Commonwealth on the merits. That device is to hand it over for resolution on behalf of the Commonwealth to the three heads of government: the President of Nigeria, the President of South Africa and the Prime Minister of Australia.

On the strength of our positions as the current, past and future chairmen in the office, it has been decided, in case are you wondering, that Nigeria will host the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. South Africa hosted the last one, we are hosting this one and Nigeria is hosting the next one. As will become apparent from the communique which will be released tomorrow, we have adopted the recommendation from the High Level Review Group that does give a slightly expanded role to the Secretary-General and to the chairman in office, the description used for the person who, in my position, chairs this meeting and then continues in that role until the next meeting, which will be at the end of next year.

I believe that this is a bona fide effective way of providing a mechanism that will enable adjustment to be made on the strength of the observers' report. What the Commonwealth heads have done, as this statement indicates, is to mandate. That is a very strong word, a very well-understood word, in political circles. It has given us authority to make a judgment. But that judgment is made obviously in accordance with the Harare Declaration or the Millbrook declaration or action program. There was no dissent in the meeting from the view that those principles should be upheld.

I think it is a very good outcome. It provides a sure mechanism, a quick mechanism, for dealing with the issue. It is a fair mechanism and one that is very dependent upon the nature and the quality of the report that comes from the Observer Group. It clearly gives authority to the three heads of government to take that decision in the light of that report and based on the application of the Harare and Millbrook programs.

MR MCKINNON: I want to say something by way of a slight background. Those of you who followed this whole issue will be aware that since the Millbrook plan of action was put in place in Auckland six and a half years ago there has always been a wide interpretation and a lot of argument about the interpretation of the role and breadth, capability and capacity of CMAG. That now comes to an end as we put in place a whole new mandate for dealing with difficult issues within Commonwealth countries, which will take effect when this meeting concludes. So we are moving from one modus operandi for dealing with states that are perceived to be in violation to another. It is quite appropriate in the circumstances to take Zimbabwe out of this crossing-the-bridge issue and deal with it quite separately, virtually by an appellate court of the CMAG ministers. The CMAG ministers, as of next week, are under a slightly different mandate, where the definitions of their roles are much clearer.

QUESTION: Do the powers that yourself and the other two members of the committee have extend to imposing sanctions?

MR HOWARD: It is the full range of what is in the Millbrook agreement.

(Inaudible question)

MR HOWARD: No. We have been mandated. We will obviously discharge that mandate responsibly carefully and deliberately. But we will be guided what is in the Millbrook and Harare.

QUESTION: How quickly after that could you act if need be?

MR HOWARD: Don might be able to help me on precise days and weeks. But in both cases, quickly, quickly.

MR MCKINNON: The elections are on 9 and 10 March next week. The observers will invariably give an interim report after the polls have closed and before the results are announced. Their final report is usually written in a couple of days after that. It would come to me two or three to four days after the election.

QUESTION: Will the observers be allowed to stay on, or has the Commonwealth recommended that observers stay on in Zimbabwe after the elections, as the opposition has requested?

MR MCKINNON: The observers have been put there to stay there until they have concluded their report. I know people say to keep your observers there. All our observers are volunteers. They are there for about four weeks, invariably until they feel it is time to go home. Nevertheless, as long as they have seen the election through, seen the results come out, written their report, we do not see a need to keep them there in the total number that they are.

QUESTION: Prime Minister, my question is about India and Pakistan tension with the disputed region of Kashmir. Have the leaders discussed how to help resolve the Kashmir dispute?

MR HOWARD: That matter has not been discussed. There would be a couple of reasons perhaps why that is so. One of them, of course, is that Pakistan is currently suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. It is also traditional, as I understand it, that disputes between member states of the Commonwealth are not normally discussed at Commonwealth meetings without the express agreement of both of them. I should say that the Indian Prime Minister, unfortunately, could not come at the last moment. He spoke to me last Thursday night. We talked about this issue briefly. I extended to him my appreciation for the efforts that have been made by him to lower the temperature of that dispute. It remains a very difficult issue. But both the Prime Minister of India and General Mushari deserve credit for the steps they have taken more recently to lower some of the temperature of that dispute.

QUESTION: Prime Minister, you have said that your response and the response of the three chairmen will be guided within the framework of the Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Convention. Is not that a point of contention? We have already heard Zimbabwe argue that both those documents stop action for anything less than a coup, and that has not happened.

MR HOWARD: That is not a view I accept and it is not a view the majority of people accept. If you look at Millbrook, it uses the word 'particularly' but not 'exclusively or 'only' in relation to the coup. It is not an interpretation I accept. It is not an argument that has any currency in the meeting.

QUESTION: Prime Minister, you have said this is a fair and sure mechanism. Surely it does not guarantee that your view will prevail. There will be suspension, if it is felt necessary, because two of the three leaders have held out very strongly against action against Zimbabwe in the past.

MR HOWARD: You are making assumptions about my view that you ought not make. My view will be guided by what is contained in the observers report. My mandate, and the only mandate I will have, is to act in accordance with what is in the report and be guided by the principles of Harare and Millbrook. The other observation I would make is that I think the question also implies that the other two colleagues will bring a lack of bona fides to their assessment of the merits of the issue. I do not believe that will be the case.

QUESTION: There are many people in Britain and Australia who will see this statement as very weak. I assume 'concern' is a deliberately chosen but rather muted word.

MR HOWARD: Are you making a speech or asking me a question?

QUESTION: There are two questions. You also call on all parties to refrain from violence. You do not single out Robert Mugabe. How do you defend yourself against the accusation that you have pulled your punch here on Mr Mugabe? Secondly, if Zimbabwe is a test of the relevance of the Commonwealth, have you failed that test?

MR HOWARD: I reject both those claims. You notice that 'parties' is with a small 'p', not a capital 'p'. It is a generic exhortation to everybody who might be involved in violence to desist. At the end of the day you have to find a mechanism that accommodates the range of views in the Commonwealth on this issue but also delivers a fair and sure outcome. That is what we have done. I think your accusation would have been valid if what we had done was to say that we will get the observers report, we will get the three heads of government to look at it and then make a recommendation to the next meeting of the Commonwealth. I think you would have had a valid point then. I think that would have been a very valid criticism. It would have been weak. But you have a situation now that provides a series of quite definite steps. Those steps are that you get the report quickly. Three people have been identified. None of us can hide behind the fog of a collective. We cannot. We have all got to be accountable for the decisions we take on the merits of the report. Therefore, I do not regard it as weak at all; I do not think it has failed the test. I do not accept the accusation contained in your question.

QUESTION: In view of the number of heads of government absent from this meeting, there have been comments that the Commonwealth has been losing its relevance. What do you make of that comment?

MR HOWARD: It has been a very good turn up considering it was postponed. Bear in mind that there were a couple of heads of government, particularly from India and Sri Lanka, who pulled out at the last moment because of very difficult domestic positions. There were some very distressing events in India. The leader of Sri Lanka has the responsibility of making work this very welcome cease-fire agreement that has been concluded between groups who have been fighting each other in Sri Lanka for a long period of time. I think we have had a great roll-up. Everybody seems to have enjoyed themselves. There is still a bit to go as well.

QUESTION: What have you promised to Zimbabwe, and how soon will it come into effect after the finding of a free and fair election?

MR HOWARD: We have not gone into the detail of that. There are different ways of providing assistance. We are willing to do with that in cooperation with other international agencies.
MR MCKINNON: We have already done work with Zimbabwe in terms offering to provide assistance to the electoral commission. It was turned down. We are currently working with UNDP on the land reform program. Hopefully, that can be reactivated after the elections. We will also be involved in that.

QUESTION: I have three technical points. Is there any appeal on the decision of the heads of government? If you cannot reach ananimity, will a majority vote suffice? At what stage is the observers report made public?

MR HOWARD: In relation to the first question, no. In relation to the second question, my view is that, if the report is adverse, I think everybody will have the same view. I can only express a view in relation to that. At what time will the report be made public, we have not addressed that. We will have to talk about it with the Secretary-General.

MR MCKINNON: Usually after it has been received by Commonwealth governments.

QUESTION: Could you just make clear, if you are willing, as to whose idea of the three heads this was? It was suggested that it came from General Obasanjo rather than the Australian government. Do you think this deal restores the battered credibility of the Commonwealth because it has failed to again and again to take action on Zimbabwe after a period of two years?

MR HOWARD: In relation to the second question, I think it does provide a very credible response. You can make a judgment. If want to suspend judgment on that, which I guess you will, you can wait until after we have received the report and responded. But I can tell you that as far as I am concerned I am going to apply myself in a bona fide way to this. I am perfectly satisfied from my discussions with president Obasanjo and President Mbeki. As to whose idea it was, I appreciated the contributions of many people to the discussion, including General Obasanjo. I found him a very pleasant and positive person with whom to work. I had not met him until he - I met him very briefly in Durban. He paid a short bilateral visit to Australia. We worked together very effectively. He brings a very different perspective on something like that from me. I regard him as a very honourable person who is genuinely trying to find a solution that supported the credibility of the Commonwealth but also accommodated the range of views on this issue. I think you can suspend your judgment, as you say you will, until after the process has worked its way through. I think it is a credible outcome for the Commonwealth. I do not know that I have much to say about what has happened over the last couple of years. I think it is a very credible outcome. It does reflect a lot of credit on all the heads of government.

As I say, I particularly appreciated the contribution of General Obasanjo but also the President of South Africa, the British Prime Minister. I tried to hit a few boundaries too.

MR MCKINNON: If in fact the Commonwealth had suspended Zimbabwe two years ago, we would not have election observers there now. We would not even be engaged now. We will not have had the ministers from the Abuja process there. We have remained engaged. It has been extraordinarily difficult. We have not been that successful but we do have 60 election observers on the ground now, which is what the people of Zimbabwe want.

QUESTION: This is a question about Bangladesh. Is the government going to take any initiative to help the countries of Bangladesh to face the challenges of globalisation?

MR HOWARD: Your question, which is for understandable reasons, asked at gatherings of this nature, makes the assumption, I think, if I understood the question correctly - please correct me if I am wrong - that globalisation has automatically negative effects. I do not share that view. One thing that came through very strongly during our discussion was the widespread recognition of the need for more open trading practices around the world. It was a point to which I averted in my welcoming address. It remains my very strong view that the best thing that developed countries could do for countries like Bangladesh would be to reduce and preferable eliminate their trade barriers. That is certainly a view expressed very strongly, especially but not only by those member states of the Commonwealth that are agricultural exporters.

QUESTION: In the event of an adverse report, would you expect the three leaders to meet face to face? If so, would that meeting take place in Australia?

MR HOWARD: The answer to the first question is we might. The answer to the second question is that it might or it might not. I have not really considered that. What will happen is that the report will go to the Secretary-General and then he will consult us. He will obviously be heavily involved in the process and we will be talking to him. As to whether we need to meet face to face, we can make a decision about that depending on what is in the report. Whatever is necessary in terms of process will be undertaken in order to respond quickly and effectively and honestly to the recommendations. We might have I have to go back to this retreat. We still have other matters to deal with.

QUESTION: You described the discussions as lengthy. Can you say how difficult and divisive they were, even though you now have an agreement?

MR HOWARD: Well, it was an intense discussion. But at no stage did it become acrimonious. I can honestly say that. At no stage did it become nasty or unpleasant. But it is a discussion that naturally traversed the history of Zimbabwe and what had gone before Zimbabwe. There were a whole range of views expressed. But everybody who contributed to it did so in a very conscientious manner. I should add that the Zimbabwe foreign minister was given ample time to put a point of view, which was appropriate. I am not going to say what that point of view was because I am not meant to disclose any detail. But the Secretary-General would agree with me that it was an intense, committed, involved discussion, but at no stage did it become spiteful or acrimonious.

I believe that the mood of the meeting was extremely positive at the end because people do see this as a genuinely effective way of dealing with a difficult problem that does provide a bona fides mechanism that will produce an outcome based on the merits of the situation and not individual views. I will take one more question and then we must go.

QUESTION: So much is riding on the observer report. Are you confident that the observers now in Zimbabwe will be in a position to produce a definitive report? If it is not definitive and conclusive, what happens next?

MR MCKINNON: They produced a report on the June 2000 elections. It was critical at the time. We have the same leader of the observer mission, General Abuka from Nigeria. Some of the same observers are there this time that were there last time. They managed to get a report out. It was critical. I have full confidence that they will put it weekly with the reports report.

ENDS