Oldest Colliery to Shut with Loss Of 500 Jobs

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Oldest Colliery to Shut with Loss Of 500 Jobs

Demonstrate – Stop Bush and Blair’s War!
For Your Information: Iran, Iraq, North Korea Dismiss Bush Accusations

Letter to the Editor:
Now we are all Terrorists

Zimbabwe Denounces EU for Archaic Colonial Relationship

For Your Reference:
Eighteenth Meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on the Harare Declaration (CMAG)

Britain's oldest colliery, which employs 500, is to close in September when all the workers will lose their jobs. The closure was announced on January 30, just 24 hours after Brian Wilson, the Energy Minister, ruled out further state aid for the coal industry. IMC Group Consulting Limited reported to the Department of Trade and Industry on potential reserves at the colliery that they "have been unable to identify any areas that will sustain long-term viable production".

UK Coal, the renamed RJB Group, and Britain’s biggest coal producer, said further investment could not be justified at the Prince of Wales Colliery in Pontefract, West Yorkshire. The colliery, which began production in 1860, suffered geological problems during the development of a new face. Operations will be phased out over the next eight months.

Gordon McPhie, UK Coal’s chief executive, said: "We cannot justify further investment at the colliery. With the skill and support of our employees, we can replace the output lost by the closure by increasing production at other mines."

UK Coal will write off £15.8 million after a failed attempt to open reserves at its nearby Wentedge coalfield.

The National Union of Mineworkers condemned the closure as "destructive". The union said that it "will cause further damage in a region already battered by other closures and unemployment, with an effect far beyond mining families themselves."

An NUM spokesman said: "This latest threat only reaffirms the union's belief that the coal industry belongs in public or social ownership with public control over long-term, development. Miners and their families at Prince of Wales or any other colliery should not be at the mercy of company shareholders."

Stop the US torture of prisoners

Hands off Somalia and Iraq

Stop the bombing now

Saturday March 2 Assemble Hyde Park, London 1pm

The Stop the War Coalition in calling another national demonstration on March 2 states that it is to show Bush and Blair we will not allow civil liberties to be trampled on in the name of a war on the poorest countries in the world.

The vicious treatment of the prisoners at Camp X-Ray has shocked millions, the statement says. Even many who supported the war have been horrified to see prisoners bound, shaved and gagged, kept in open air pens with no hope of a proper trial. The truth is camp X-ray has exposed the brutality of Bush and Blair's so called "war on terror". Far from liberating Afghanistan, the West has turned a desperately poor country into a disaster area. US bombing killed thousands of innocent Afghans. The warlords have returned to rule over devastated cities while millions of refugees are on the edge of starvation. Incredibly, the US is still bombing the country.

The US is now planning phase two of the war. They are threatening action against Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq...the list goes on. There are already hundreds of US troops in the Philippines and a major naval build up off the coast of Somalia.

For all these reasons our movement must stay in the streets. On Saturday 800 people braved pouring rain to picket the Israeli embassy in London. Across the country we are getting reports of lively, well attended Coalition meetings.

Now we need to pull out all the stops for March 2.

The Stop the War Coalition steering committee explain that the date of the national demo has been changed to March 2 from February 23. This change, they say, was unavoidable after it was pointed out that the Muslim festival of Eid will fall on 23rd February this year, and that there were a number of other anti war events happening across the country already on the 23rd. It is vital that we keep together the fantastic anti war coalition that developed last year. It means that we have an extra week to build the demo! The importance of the demo was underlined by Bush's warmongering speech in which he said, "Our war against terror is only just beginning." He mentioned North Korea, Iraq and Iran as possible targets, saying "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

News agencies widely reported that Iran, Iraq and North Korea on Wednesday rejected the accusation by President Bush that they form an "axis of evil" developing weapons of mass destruction to threaten America and the world.

Noting that "our war against terror is only beginning", Bush said that a major US priority was to "prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." He singled out North Korea, Iran and Iraq as pursuing and arming themselves with these weapons. "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world," Bush said. He added, "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.... America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."

Iran said Bush's remarks smacked of a desire for hegemony, Iraq suggested they presaged a US attack on Baghdad and North Korea saw them as evidence of a "policy of aggression".

"The world will not accept US hegemony," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi retorted Wednesday. "The American president had better back up his assertions with evidence instead of repeating old and unfounded claims."

"Bush intends to divert public opinion from the Middle East issue and to prepare the domestic grounds for continuing his support of Israel in its brutal oppression of the Palestinian nation," state radio quoted Kharrazi as saying.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ridiculed Bush's remarks. "It is amazing that Bush, officially and in a combative tone, describes ... Iran, Iraq and North Korea as terrorists," he told a gathering of journalists from Muslim countries. "It is possible that Americans will cheer Bush as the congressmen did, but we will not be threatened by such aggressive language," state television quoted him as saying.

"Little Bush's accusation against Iraq is baseless," Salim al-Qubaisi, head of the Iraqi parliament's foreign and Arab relations committee, said. "The American administration led by Bush has been threatening Iraq from time to time to prepare world public opinion for a new aggression against Iraq," said Qubaisi.

"But such threats do not scare us, as the Iraqi people are well prepared to repel any aggression or foolishness by the American-Zionist administration," he added.

"The US loudmouthed 'threat' from the DPRK is sophism intended to justify its military presence in South Korea and persistently pursue the policy of aggression against the DPRK," said a newspaper commentary carried by the official news agency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

South Korean President Kim Dae-jung responded by stressing the importance of peace with its neighbour. "It is important to maintain a peaceful atmosphere in North-South relations," Kim told the cabinet. "Our economic future depends on North-South relations."

The Philippines also responded to President Bush's warning that if countries do not deal with terrorist activities on their soil, "America will."

"It's clear in my mind that one president of a friendly country does not threaten another friendly country," Justice Secretary Hernando Perez said. "We do seek assistance from them in case of need, but that doesn't mean they will run the foreign policy of our country."

"Some people would want to interpret it to mean that the US will impose its will, but we're a self-respecting sovereign state," Defence Secretary Angelo Reyes said.

Rep. Saturnino Ocampo said Bush's statement "exactly portrays the arrogant stance of the US to justify its unilateral action and intervention in other countries in the name of fighting terrorism."

Munawaar Hasan, a leader of Pakistan's main fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami party, called America the biggest patron of terrorism because it supports oppressive regimes.

He said Bush's crackdown on jihad groups would further fuel anger among Muslims around the world.

"Jihadi groups have been formed in reaction to the state terrorism of countries like India, Israel, Russia," he said.

Since the introduction of the Terrorism Bill in Parliament back in 1999 I have followed the debate surrounding the new legislation with avid interest. As a Marxist-Leninist I have a political interest in the clampdown on Irish freedom-fighters and domestic "subversives", from liberal peace protesters to anti-fascist, anti-capitalist demonstrators, and as a practising criminal defence lawyer I have a professional interest in the practical application of the law.

These two interests converged on 19 December 2001 when I was "detained" by Special Branch under the new legislation for the purpose of "examination", arrested, held for 17 hours, interrogated and tortured through repeated forcible attempts at taking my fingerprints. Eventually I was released on bail, to return on 18 February to find out if I will be charged with any offences. The cuff-marks remain on my wrist and the psychological marks remain on my mind as I write this report one month after the actual event.

I had been in Belgium attending a massive trade union demonstration against the EU on 13 December, and the latest big anti-capitalist demonstration on 14 December, both in Brussels. I returned on the Eurostar on 19 December and was checked by French customs on the train before it went into the tunnel. There were dark-suited British officers checking people on the train once it was officially in the UK, and I assumed that they were customs as well. An officer approached me, showed me a Metropolitan Police badge and asked to see my passport. I asked him what he was doing and he explained that he was a member of Special Branch and was doing routine anti-terrorism checks. I showed him my passport and he continued on his way. I thought nothing more of it, but when I got off the train at Waterloo at 4.30pm, the same officer was waiting for me before the arrivals area.

He approached me and said: "I'm detaining you under the Terrorism Act, come with me." I could hardly believe it! I had thought about what a fuss I would make if I ever found myself in trouble with the police, but I never imagined I would be targeted as a "terrorist". I asked the officer his name and he told me: "DS Geoffrey Singleton." I wrote it down immediately and followed him into a room there in Waterloo station. He sat me down and immediately began asking me questions about who I was, where I had been, where I was going and what I was doing. I began answering his questions thinking I was being interviewed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which guarantees criminal detainees rights to legal advice, silence, and a standard of treatment specified in the Codes of Practice. Little did I know I was actually being "examined" under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA), which I later learnt is a piece of legislation that makes a mockery of the "rule of law" and civil rights, which exist only in theory.

After a few general questions he began asking me about my support for the Intifada - he knew I was a supporter because I was wearing a badge which had a Palestinian flag for a background, and the words "End the Occupation, Support the Intifada" in the foreground. I explained that I had been active in the Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign, having meetings and handing out leaflets (join PSC, go to www.palestinecampaign.org or call 020 7700 6192). Unsatisfied with my answer he asked the question again, at which alarm bells started ringing.

I am used to representing people in police stations and when an officer repeats a question which has been answered, it's usually my cue to say, "You've had an answer officer, please move onto the next question." But now, here I was, in the custody of Special Branch under the Terrorism Act, being questioned when I had already given an answer. I asked him to clarify what exactly he wanted to know and he repeated the question again, at which point I said: "I'm not answering any more questions, no comment." He asked me where I live and I repeated: "No comment." He then asked for my passport, which he had already seen on the train. I handed it over and told him that the address on the passport was my address, knowing that refusal to supply an address gives rise to a general power of arrest. I then asked if I had the right to legal advice, I was told that I had none. DS Singleton looked at me scornfully and left the room. I had been there no more than five minutes and things were already getting tense.

Another officer came in and began searching my large rucksack. He also searched my jacket. He then asked me to stand up so that he could body search me. I was alarmed and asked him why he wanted to do that. He told me not to worry and that he was only going to pad me down. It was my turn to repeat the question, so I again asked him why and what he was looking for. He looked confused, as though no one had ever objected to being frisked, and said that he had the power to search me and that I was just making things difficult. I explained to the man that I was not minded to being physically searched by police officers because I found it undignified and degrading, and that I would gladly turn out my pockets. He persisted, so I asked him to explain his reason for wanting to search me and he stated that I might have something on me that could be used to injure himself or another officer!

I told the officer that I had got off the Eurostar expecting to go straight home, that I had no idea that I would be sitting in that room, and that I certainly had no intention to do him any harm. I stated further that I would be prepared to listen to any "reasonable suspicion" he had formed as to whether I had anything dangerous on me, and that if it was genuine I would reconsider. Of course, he had no real reason to search me, and so he became frustrated. He told me that I would be searched whether I liked it or not, and left the room.

Having been there for an hour I was handed a "Notice of Detention" which outlined the particular legislation under which I was being held. It stated that I had the right to have someone informed of my detention and to consult a solicitor! I studied the notice and added it to the papers I had compiled detailing the events so far, the names of officers who had given them and the warrant numbers of those that refused to tell me their names. Next I asked to use the toilet but was refused on the grounds that I might dispose of something or produce a weapon! 25 minutes later I was allowed to use the loo with supervision, after which I requested my rights.

After I made my first phone call I was told that I was being arrested for failing to provide address details! I immediately pointed out that the officers had my passport, which had my address on it, and that I had told them so when I handed it over. Two minutes later I was told that I was to be arrested for refusing to submit to a body search! It was obvious that they were looking for an excuse to arrest me, although I was glad that I'd be taken to proper police station where I would have certain rights in custody that I was familiar with.

So, I waited another 45 minutes for uniformed officers to turn up, handcuff me, walk me through Waterloo station like a criminal, and take me in a squad car no more than 200 metres down the road to Kennington Road copshop. I was booked into custody, and whilst I was waiting I gave informal legal advice to two detainees who were being pursued for drugs and dishonesty offences. Eventually I was spoken to by the custody sergeant, to whom I explained the false pretences on which I had been arrested, but he had already authorised my detention and was not amenable to my objections. I requested my custody record so that I may note my objections on it. He refused, saying that the record was for him not me, at which I asked for the writing materials to which I was entitled. He then had me searched, which I allowed knowing that he had a "legitimate" reason (my safety) as distinct from the original search situation where there was none.

I was allowed to speak to a solicitor who said he'd be out soon, and then I was put into a cell to wait for my legal advice. Two hours went by and eventually I was let out of the cell to speak to my brief, who turned out to be an Irishman named Adams! He was not the guy I had spoken to on the phone and admitted to knowing nothing about the terrorism legislation under which I was being held. I sympathised with him since I knew nothing about it either, but the right to legal advice is useless if the system cannot provide you access to someone who knows the law in that area.

We were told that I would not be "interviewed" under PACE in relation to the offence for which I had been arrested; rather I would be "examined" under Schedule 7 of the TA. I had no right to silence, and in fact I was under a duty to provide the examining officer any information he requested! Further, if I failed to comply with this duty I would be committing an offence for which I could be imprisoned for up to three months, and/or receive a fine of up to £2,500!

Following legal advice I decided that I would have to answer questions to avoid the possibility of an unnecessary conviction for a terrorist offence, which wouldn't look very good on future job applications and may stop me from qualifying as a solicitor in future. I was worried about the prospect of a police interview without the right to silence, since I knew that the only way for the police to get evidence where there is none is through the mouth of the "suspect". I did not know what they wanted to ask me about, my solicitor got minimal disclosure and I was worried about questions being sprung on me without my knowing what sort of allegations I was actually facing.

Anyway, we went into an interview room, where tapes were put in the machine and the examination was begun. I was asked very vague, open questions, mainly in relation to visits to Libya and Algeria, which regular Spark readers will be aware of. I explained to the officers that I had been attending youth conferences and festivals officially organised by the governments of those countries, in an attempt to foster positive relations between our respective countries. Then they asked me why I had been to Pakistan, and I told them that I, like many other second-generation immigrants in the UK, had family in Pakistan, and that I had been visiting Pakistan since childhood for this purpose. I had to work hard to get the examining officer to narrow down his questions, because I was used to police officers asking detainees about their involvement in specific offences, whereas this "examination" seemed to be an intelligence gathering exercise at my expense. Eventually the questions were exhausted and the tape buzzer sounded before I had a chance to add my own comments to the tape. The officers refused to put another tape in, and that was the end of that.

It was now 1am. I was fatigued from travelling and being locked up, and I expected that a decision would be made and I would be released. I had no idea how I would get back to West London from Waterloo, as I was now in serious danger of missing the last tube. However, this was not a consideration for the police. What Special Branch were concerned with was fingerprints.

I was told that I would be fingerprinted, and my solicitor discovered that they wanted three sets of extremely detailed fingerprints. I noticed that a female in casual clothes who had been hanging about Kennington custody was actually a fingerprint specialist present simply to ensure the extraction of quality prints from me. I knew that the procedure required my written consent, and I also knew that consent could not be withdrawn once it had been given. More importantly though, they wanted my fingerprints before even charging me with an offence! I hadn't done anything wrong; they were not even alleging that I had done anything wrong, yet they wanted my prints for no apparent reason. The last nail in the coffin was the fact that they wanted to then keep those prints FOREVER.

I refused to consent to giving my fingerprints, and the police used all sorts of tactics over the course of the next four hours to get me to change my mind and submit to their will. Initially I was told that a Superintendent would come in the morning to authorise the use of force. I argued that I was only allowed to be held "as long as is necessary", and that the fact that I was still there was unnecessary, but being kept in a cell until the morning was completely out of order. I told them to bring the Superintendent immediately. The custody sergeant refused, saying that the Super was unavailable until morning. So I told him to get on the phone, but the objection came back that the authorisation had to be marked on the custody record and that the Super therefore had to be there in person. I had to quote the law at this custody sergeant, and told him that verbal authorisation was permitted as long as it was written down as soon as practicable afterwards. There was a moment of silence in Kennington custody and then the sergeant got on the phone.

Whilst this was a victory for me in terms of speeding up the process, I had only succeeded in getting the police to obtain authority to use force against me! The phone call lasted no more than 90 seconds and the police had their "authority". I was then taken by the large middle-aged jailer to the fingerprint area. I allowed him to wash, dry and ink my hands, and as he moved my right index finger onto the print form I deliberately smudged the print. He looked at me disdainfully and the process was repeated. I politely explained that he was assaulting me, and that it would be impossible for him to take fingerprints from me whilst I was unwilling. He said something along the lines of, "We'll see about that," and then put handcuffs on my wrist, using them as a clamp. The hard metal cut into my skin causing pain, he grabbed the middle part of the cuff and tried again to take my print. I held my ground and he failed. He then went off in a huff and came back with another officer. The two of them held me, jostled me and manhandled me into position, and attempted to take my prints by force for another 40 minutes. After they had spoiled a dozen print forms they decided to put me in a cell for while, presumably so that they could scratch their heads about what to do next.

The next hour and a half in that cell was an extremely testing time for me. Whilst initially I thought the situation would be interesting - an intellectual exercise in the rights of citizens against the power of the state authorities - I realised that the situation I was in was dangerous and oppressive. The police really had authority to use force on me. My wrist and arm was swollen and bruised from their aggressive actions. I had no idea how long I would be in this cell, or what they had in store for me next. The police attitude so far had been, "You will be here for as long as it takes." This was no joke.

At 3.30am there was a knock on the cell door and I was pleased to see an Inspector. I thought she would be releasing me, but she took me back to the fingerprint area where eight large male officers were standing waiting for me. This time they really put the pressure on and soon I was shouting and screaming in pain. At one point I allowed myself to lean completely on an officer as I expected my knees to give way. They applied so much pressure on my fingers and arm that the pain, coupled with that of the cuffs on my wrist, meant I could hardly stand. I'm not sure exactly how long that went on, but the jailer stopped the proceedings partly out of frustration and partly because the cuts on my wrist were becoming too obvious. At that point I gave those officers a speech on human and civil rights, and told them that I would be mad to hand over three sets of prints to Special Branch, for them to keep forever, for no apparent reason. I told them people like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four had spent decades in jail because Special Branch had deliberately stitched them up for terrorist offences they did not commit. I refused to give my fingerprints on principled grounds, and I did not submit to their will.

At 5am I was taken to the medical room to see the police doctor who sympathetically listened to my story, but was unable to do anything other than make a thorough note of my injuries. After that I was told by the Inspector that in the morning the Territorial Support Group (TSG) would arrive, that they were a special anti-terrorist force, and that they had methods of forcing prints from non-compliant prisoners, and that if my fingers or wrist were broken it would be MY OWN FAULT!

I could hardly believe that an Inspector was threatening me with broken bones. I retorted that broken bones would constitute unreasonable force and that I would sue her personally as well as the Met in general. In any case, I was put back in a cell and slept from 5.30-8.30am when I was woken by the civilian jailer with breakfast. It wasn't too bad but I had little appetite. Having been in plenty of police stations, this was the first time I had woken up in one. I had had little sleep and was not relishing the prospect of being tortured by the TSG.

Just before 9am I requested the jailer to let me speak with a Superintendent, an Inspector, a solicitor from Birnbergs, a solicitor from Bindmans, and my old boss at Darbys in Oxford. Shortly afterwards a new Inspector came knocking and told me that he did not think that he was not satisfied that I was being held "necessarily", that he would check what Special Branch were up to and get back to me shortly. At 9.40am I was let out of my cell to speak to my old boss, and whilst on the phone I was told that I was to be bailed to return at a later date. Shortly after 10am I was out of the station and walking along the bank of the river Thames on a cold Thursday morning in December, a week before Christmas.

The whole episode affirmed my worst fears about the police, Special Branch (the British Gestapo) and the criminal justice system. The rights that we assume are upheld in our "civilised" country are actually not recognised in practice. The police detained me under Schedule 7 of the TA, which gives the power to officers to "detain" anyone for up to nine hours to determine whether they "appear" to be a terrorist, and the officer does not even need to have reasonable suspicion. That is called ARBITRARY ARREST. They then wanted to "examine" me, during which I had a "duty" to provide any information they required. I HAD NO RIGHT TO SILENCE. Further, I would be committing an offence if I failed in that duty. This means that simply refusing to answer questions has been CRIMINALISED, and carries a prison sentence of up to three months. This is called being GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and is a subversion of the right to a fair trial.

The terrorism legislation enacted recently provides the power to detain foreigners without charge. This policy (and most others in the TA) is well known to the Irish as INTERNMENT, or imprisonment without trial. Section 41 of the TA gives the power to arrest without warrant anyone suspected of committing a specific offence OR anyone suspected of being "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation" of terrorism. This means that the police have the power to arrest someone who has not committed any offence or broken any law, which is a clear violation of the basic right to freedom. Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty ... [unless under] lawful arrest or detention ... effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence."

In plain English this means that no one should be arrested (and therefore deprived of their liberty) unless someone thinks they've done something wrong. Compare that with my story.

The most worrying aspect of the law is the removal of the RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSOCIATION, AND THOUGHT. The "proscribed list" of terrorist organisations tells you who you can and cannot support, which organisations you can and cannot join, and even which organisations you can and cannot advertise with badges. The government has banned DHKC, the Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Front of Turkey, the leading light in the struggle against the brutal fascistic government of Turkey. Also banned is PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party, again in the forefront of the struggle against Turkish fascism, but also struggling to win nationhood for the beleaguered Kurds. Another banned group is the PFLP, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the leading components of the PLO and the strongest revolutionary element in the Palestinian struggle against illegitimate Israeli occupation.

What does all this mean? It means that slowly but surely the government is telling you that if you support national liberation and revolutionary movements abroad, you will be treated like a criminal, but you will not even get the same rights a criminal suspect has. The situation as it stands is clearly the beginning of a legislative move towards extreme reaction, being carried out by a Labour government, which has moved everything else towards reaction and is now changing the laws in order to clamp down on "subversion" at home.

The TA, in effect since 19 February 2001, defines terrorism as action or THREAT of action (so you don't even have to do anything, just threaten it) which involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person's life, creates serious risk to public health or safety, or seriously interferes with an electronic system; and the use or threat is designed to INFLUENCE THE GOVERNMENT or intimidate the public; and the use or threat is made with the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Hmmm, sounds like imperialist bombing of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan and Iraq, and the sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and other states. The definition is so broad that it could be used to target workers on strike (which is bound to become a thing of the future, what with the chaos in transport, the cutting of 30,000 jobs at Consignia, and the continuing crisis in capitalist economics), anti-war protesters, anti-capitalist protesters, indeed anyone who even tries to "influence" the government.

(signed, SLP reader)

Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge denounced the European Union and the Commonwealth for trying to "perpetuate an archaic colonial relationship", the official ZIANA news agency said.

The statement on Thursday came a day after the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting in London.

"It is clear to us that the manner in which the situation in this country is being treated by the CMAG and the EU is an attempt to perpetuate an archaic colonial relationship between Europe and Africa," Stan Mudenge said.

"We have no dialogue, but a monologue, for although we have raised our own concerns about external interference, we have received neither a response nor an acknowledgement," he said.

The Foreign Minister's comments were the first official government reaction to an EU demand Monday for Zimbabwe to agree by February 3 to allow a European observer team monitor polls on March 9-10. If the Zimbabwean government refuses to accept the observers, EU foreign ministers said they would apply "targeted sanctions" against the government. The EU foreign ministers agreed to impose a travel ban on the top 20 individuals in Mugabe's inner circle and their families and to freeze their foreign assets if Zimbabwe prevented the deployment of EU election observers.

Stan Mudenge was speaking at the start of Southern African Development Community (SADC) task force meeting in Harare on Zimbabwe's crisis.

The official Herald newspaper had said on Thursday in an editorial, "Zimbabwe pulled yet another diplomatic coup on the 'mighty British Empire' when their proposal to suspend Zimbabwe from an organisation led by their Queen was thrown out of the window." This was a reference to the CMAG meeting rejecting Britain's pressure to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had sought Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth's main decision-making bodies and a recommendation from the ministers for its complete suspension at a March 2-5 Commonwealth summit in Australia.

Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon said engagement, not isolation, was the best course and that cutting Zimbabwe off would have left the international community even fewer levers of influence over President Robert Mugabe.

The Herald newspaper said the bid to isolate Zimbabwe by Britain and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) had been a flop. "For the umpteenth time the former colonialists, the British, have been beaten by Zimbabwe on the diplomatic front. It is always a difficult thing for a master to ever regard their former subject as an equal and this prejudice has confined the British diplomats to international embarrassment," it said.

For Your Reference:

Eighteenth Meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on the Harare Declaration (CMAG)

Commonwealth Secretariat, Marlborough House, London SW1Y 5HX

30 January 2002

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on the Harare Declaration (CMAG) met in London on 30 January 2002. This was the Group’s eighteenth meeting since its creation by Commonwealth Heads of Government in November 1995. The meeting was chaired by the Hon Lt-Gen Mompati Merafhe, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Botswana, and was attended by the Hon Alexander Downer MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia, the Hon M Morshed Khan, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, the Hon Billie Miller, MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Barbados (Vice-Chairperson), the Hon William Graham, PC, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, the Hon Tan Sri Dato’ Musa bin Hitam, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister of Malaysia to CMAG, the Hon Sule Lamido, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, and the Rt Hon Jack Straw, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom.

Report

CMAG unanimously adopted its biennial Report to CHOGM, and agreed that before making their Report public, it would be submitted to Commonwealth Heads of Government, who will be meeting in Coolum, Australia, in March this year.

CMAG also reviewed recent developments in respect of those countries currently on its Agenda, i.e., Fiji Islands, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Zimbabwe.

Fiji Islands

The Group agreed to recommend to Heads of Government to take note of the progress made in the restoration of democracy in Fiji Islands and in particular the elections of 25 August to 5 September 2001 which were judged by a Commonwealth Observer Group to be a free expression of the will of the electors and as such could command the confidence of the people of Fiji.

CMAG also recommended to Heads of Government that they take note of the decision taken by the Group at its meeting on 20 December 2001, that Fiji Islands’ suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth be lifted with immediate effect from that date.

CMAG agreed to recommend that in recognition of the on-going legal proceedings over the constitutionality of the present Government of Fiji, CMAG keep Fiji Islands on its agenda and the Secretary-General continue to monitor the situation there utilising the services of his Special Envoy as might be required.

Pakistan

The Group agreed to recommend that Heads of Government express their concern over the continuation of non-democratic government in Pakistan, in violation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values as expressed in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration.

The Group decided to recommend to Heads of Government that Pakistan’s status in the Commonwealth should remain unchanged pending the restoration of a democratic government i.e. Pakistan will remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

The Group also recommend that Heads of Government welcome the commitment of the Government of Pakistan to hold democratic elections by October 2002 in keeping with its roadmap for the restoration of democracy; and agreed that the Commonwealth Secretary-General should have an active monitoring role in the period leading up to the restoration of democracy, including the deployment of Commonwealth Observers at the provincial and national elections and the provision of technical assistance towards this end.

Solomon Islands

The Group recommended that Heads of Government take note of the recent National Parliament elections of 5 December 2001, the outcome of which was judged by a Commonwealth Observer Group as successful in expressing the will of the people. Heads may also wish to acknowledge the role of regional Governments for their support in assisting with the conduct of the elections.

CMAG further agreed to recommend to Heads of Government that they express support for the Government of Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakeza and note that much remains to be done to consolidate peace and stability in Solomon Islands.

The Group recommended that CHOGM commend the role of the International Peace Monitoring Team (IPMT) led by Australia in overseeing the peace process.

In recognition of the difficulties facing the Government of Solomon Islands, it was recommended that Solomon Islands should continue to be on CMAG’s agenda for the purpose of promoting good governance, peace and stability and economic development in the country.

Zimbabwe

The Group reviewed the situation in Zimbabwe in the light of developments since its last meeting on 20 December 2001. It expressed its deep concern over the continued violence, political intimidation and actions against the freedom and independence of the media.

The Group also condemned the recently enacted Public Order and Security Act and the General Laws Amendment Act, as well as the proposed Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, as further direct curbs on the freedom of speech, of the press, and association in Zimbabwe and contrary to the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values as enshrined in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration., The Group expressed the strongest concern that the statement by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces Chief and the recent and foreshadowed legislation constituted a direct threat to the conduct of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.

CMAG noted that President Mugabe had publicly issued an invitation to the Commonwealth, amongst other international and regional organisations, to send observers to the forthcoming Presidential Election. It called for the immediate deployment of such observers by the Commonwealth Secretary-General and for the full co-operation of the Government of Zimbabwe in facilitating the operation of the Commonwealth and other international and domestic observers during the election period, which had already begun.

The Group expressed its full support for the process established by the Abuja Agreement, reached at the initiative of President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, including the President’s ongoing mediation efforts and expressed its great appreciation to President Obasanjo.

The Group looked forward to the publication of the United Nations Development Programme report on equitable and sustainable land reform in Zimbabwe and expressed support for the involvement of the UNDP in this process, as agreed at Abuja.

The Group expressed support for the initiative by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), in encouraging a peaceful outcome to the situation in Zimbabwe in accordance with the rule of law and respect for human rights.

CMAG further called on the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that:

· there is an immediate end to violence and intimidation and that the police and army refrain from party political statements and activities,

· All parties in the election be allowed to campaign freely without intimidation or fear of recrimination.

· The people of Zimbabwe are able to make an unfettered and informed choice in the elections, inter alia through full access to information from the media.

The Group decided that Zimbabwe would remain on its formal agenda and agreed to draw up its recommendations to CHOGM at its next meeting, taking into account the Government of Zimbabwe’s response to these concerns, in the light of information received from the Secretary-General. The Group noted that the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme provides for a range of measures from Commonwealth disapproval to suspension.

Next Meeting

The Group decided that they would meet again prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Coolum, to consider the latest developments and finalise their recommendations to Commonwealth Heads of Government.