- INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS HOME
- NEWS
- POLICY
- PARLIAMENT
- FEATURE
- The Terms of Intervention - Nick Clegg's Foreign Policy Speech (part 1)
- The Terms of Intervention - Nick Clegg's Foreign Policy Speech (part 2)
- Mugabe's Achilles heel is his wallet - Clegg
- Why I protested during the Olympic torch relay
- Too much to lose to stop talking
- View All
- ISSUES
FEATURES
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, argues that we must cut off
Zimbabwe's access to foreign currency to force a free and fair election. With
the situation continuing to deteriorate in Zimbabwe, Mr Clegg calls for action a
sharp and aggressive strategy to ensure a fair election takes place.
This article was originally published in The Times, Monday 16th
June 2008. Nick Clegg writes:
In less than two weeks the fate of the
people of Zimbabwe will be determined by the result of a run-off presidential
election. If Robert Mugabe is allowed to steal that election the tragedy will be
complete. The scale of the catastrophe that Mugabe has precipitated in his
country is almost unimaginable. In just ten years, life expectancy has plummeted
from 61 years to less than 36 - the lowest in the world. The economy has
disintegrated - inflation by the official measure stood at 164,900 per cent in
April, unemployment is more than 80 per cent; the shops are empty, the health
service has collapsed, the school system no longer functions and millions of
Zimbabweans have fled.
Amid the chaos and misery for ordinary
Zimbabweans there exists a grotesque contrast. It is to be found in the
ostentatious houses, newly built in the suburbs of Harare by Mugabe's party
cronies and the military top brass; in the expensive cars that chauffeur the
Zanu (PF) elite around the capital and the luxury foods available to those with
access to foreign currency. But this grotesque contrast is most sinisterly
apparent in the foreign currency miraculously found to arm and equip the forces
that brutalise Mugabe's opponents, while public services and infrastructure
crumble.
In view of the extreme circumstances facing Zimbabwe, I urged
Gordon Brown two weeks ago to warn Mugabe that unless his Government met the
basic minimum standards for a free and fair election on June 27 we would work
with our allies in the region and the wider world to do the thing that his
regime fears: cut off access to the foreign currency that keeps them in power.
This step could be taken straight away by Britain using the powers of the
Exchange Control Act 1947.
Since everything hinges on what happens in
the coming days, a sharp and aggressive strategy with immediate consequences is
justified and this is the only tool with sufficient force to secure the
guarantees that we need now to ensure there is a fair election. We propose that
its application should be reviewed weekly and be lifted immediately should the
regime meet basic requirements for fair elections.
Blocking Zimbabwe's
access to foreign currency would be a serious step and I do not propose it
lightly. I know that many ordinary Zimbabweans rely on remittances from friends
and relatives abroad. But access to foreign currency is what sustains Mugabe's
brutal rule; blocking it is the only step that will have an impact on his regime
because it would threaten its ability to function.
Since I raised this
matter with the Prime Minister, the political situation in Zimbabwe has
deteriorated even farther. Aid agencies have been banned from distributing
desperately needed food, Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, has been
detained five times and prohibited from holding rallies; more than 60 opposition
supporters have been killed, and thousands have been beaten, intimidated and
driven from their homes. Mugabe at the weekend said that he was willing “to go
to war” if he lost. The Joint Operations Command, made up of the heads of the
military and state security organisations, is already directing a violent
campaign to “decompose” the Movement for Democratic Change.
Mr Brown
said that he was willing to consider any measure that might secure a free and
fair election, but I fear that in the end we will settle for nothing more than
the usual hand-wringing and ritual condemnation.
The British Government
has faced a difficult dilemma in tackling the Zimbabwe crisis. The Foreign
Office has been understandably fearful that robust action against Mugabe's
regime would play into his hands by discomforting our allies in southern Africa
and by allowing him to characterise the MDC Opposition as stooges of Zimbabwe's
“colonial oppressors”.
The Government's reticence may have been
understandable while hope remained that Thabo Mbeki, the President of South
Africa, would act decisively, but that hope faded long ago. In any event, anyone
who has recently read the pages of the Zimbabwe Herald recently, or heard the
broadcasts of the state radio or television channels, will know that the
virulence of Mugabe's anti-British/anti-MDC rhetoric is already so extreme that
he could not increase the level of vitriol even if he wished to.
Critics
of the measures I have proposed argue that blocking foreign currency from
entering the country would precipitate greater suffering. I do not underestimate
the severe consequences.
The alternative, however, is to do nothing.
That may spare us our moral qualms but it would not spare us the responsibility
for the far greater disaster that will engulf Zimbabwe if Robert Mugabe is
allowed to steal the election. The consequences for Zimbabwe's people of that
outcome would be catastrophic beyond any imagining.




















