EU Steps Up Colonialist Interference in Zimbabwe

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

EU Steps Up Colonialist Interference in Zimbabwe

For Your Information:
The Cotonou Agreement
SADC Parliamentary Forum

Disagreements between Germany and the US
Agreements between Germany and Britain

Wednesday’s Mass Demonstration to Demand the Abolition of Fees

Pickets Turn Away Lorry at Birmingham Factory

Society for Friendship with Korea Holds Meeting in North East

EU foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels on Monday, February 18, have decided to impose sanctions on the government of Zimbabwe, including a travel ban on leading members of the government and freezing of their assets held abroad. This decision of the EU was taken following a long and spiteful campaign by the British government against the government of Zimbabwe and the weekend expulsion of Pierre Schori, the head of the EU observer team for the upcoming Zimbabwe election.

A spokesman for the Zimbabwe government explained that Pierre Schori was asked to leave the country after he entered the country on a tourist visa which prohibits the holder taking part in politics or taking up employment in that country. The spokesman further explained that once Mr Schori had gained entrance to the country, he declared that he was the head of the EU observer team and began making political statements. Consequently, the government of Zimbabwe asked him to leave the country as he was in breach of his visa conditions.

The EU, in particular the British government, and the US have been issuing threats against Zimbabwe for some time now especially in regard to the government’s proposed land reform. However, the full colonialist nature of this pressure being exerted on Zimbabwe is apparent from the EU’s demand for unhindered activity for its "election observer team" and "free access for the international media". There is nothing in international law which gives the EU or any of the other big powers the right to make such a demand of an independent state. It is, in fact, clear evidence of the new attempts of the big powers to launch a new colonisation of Africa, to reverse even those gains which the mass of the African people shed their blood throughout the 20th century to achieve.

The General Affairs Council of the EU, when it decided to impose "targeted sanctions" on Zimbabwe, referred to the Cotonou Agreement. It said that on January 28, "the Council agreed that the consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement would be closed and targeted sanctions implemented if the Government of Zimbabwe prevented the deployment of an EU election observation mission, or if it prevented the mission from operating effectively, or prevented the international media from having free access to cover the election, or there was a serious deterioration in the situation on the ground, in terms of a worsening of the human rights situation or attacks on the opposition, or if the election was assessed as not being free and fair". As so often in the relation of the big powers, including the EU, with other states, one is left asking whether they are not deliberately creating a pretext, presenting ultimata which cannot or will not be met.

Be that as it may, the Cotonou Agreement replaces the neo-colonial Lomé Convention, which dates from 1975, between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. The new EU-ACP agreement was signed on June 23, 2000, in Cotonou, Benin. The context of this agreement was the historic turning point (the EU uses these words) that the world had been going through, and in particular the need to redefine international relations during the 1990s. Thus the EU laid stress on its "external action". It stated, "Due to major upheavals on the international stage, socio-economic and political changes in the ACP countries, and the spreading of poverty, with instability and potential conflict as its consequences, a rethinking of co-operation had however become necessary."

Thus the Cotonou Agreement represents a new 20-year "Partnership Agreement" between the European Community and the 77 ACP states.

On the one hand, it reflects the EU’s aspirations to be a leading superpower in world affairs. An official press release states, "this agreement will shape a significant part of the European Union's dealings with the rest of the world. It also reflects the Union's reach both as the leading international trading partner and the world's main provider of official development assistance". It also points out, for instance, "In the Caribbean region, Europe remains a necessary partner and a useful counterweight to powerful neighbours."

Crucially, however, it also reflects the drive of the old European powers to affirm and impose the neo-liberal models of society (which they claim are universally applicable and mandatory) on the ACP states. To quote from the official press release again: "The Agreement is based on respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, and on good governance. It also establishes special consultation procedures and appropriate sanctions for dealing with human rights violations and serious corruption.

"The partnership aims to encourage greater participation by civil society, the private sector and trade unions. This new approach will help advance democratic processes and transparency, while fuller information and consultation should ensure that co-operation projects prove more viable than in the past."

It is to be noted that this "new approach" links the advance of "democratic processes" with ensuring "co-operation projects prove more viable".

The press release spells out what this is to mean for the economies of the ACP states: "Regional integration among the ACP States themselves is also an important objective, and can facilitate their integration into the global economy." It continues: "These agreements will be defined as part of a broader strategy to improve the ACP States' ability to attract private sector investment."

It is under these signboards that the new relations of exploitation, of master and slave, of imperialist globalisation, are being developed by the EU big powers with the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations, and that the present developments in relation to Zimbabwe are unfolding.

The General Affairs Council of the EU, when it decided to impose "targeted sanctions" on Zimbabwe, said: "The restrictive framework imposed by the Government of Zimbabwe contradicts the international standards for free and fair elections, as agreed by SADC Parliamentary Forum." For the information of our readers, we are reproducing an extract from an article on the SADC Parliamentary Forum by Kondwani Chirambo and Pamela Chinaka of the Southern African Research and Documentation Centre (SARDC), Cape Town, Monday, April 17, 2000.

"A historic assembly of 140 parliamentarians from member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) opened here to lay ground for what many see as an important step towards accelerating the integration of decision-making structures in the 14 countries constituting Africa's most vibrant economic bloc.

"Convened by the SADC Parliamentary Forum, an association of national assembly structures in southern Africa, the conference is debating the political-economic challenges facing the continent and the possibility of setting up a regional parliament to further the ideals of integration and democratisation.

"Deputy South African President Jacob Zuma, delivering his keynote speech at the South African parliament building, said the conference should contribute to the debate on how SADC should position itself in a world of ‘accelerating globalisation’.

"Zuma prodded members, including Speakers of the national assemblies, to determine whether parliaments were playing the roles expected of them in upholding democracy and defending fundamental human rights in southern Africa.

"‘Have they been able to stand up to the executive to avoid abuse of parliament itself? Have they been able to prevent wars and massacres...’, he asked.

"African parliaments had not taken sufficient advantage of the Organisation of African Unity(OAU) resolution to create an African Court to ensure the observance of human rights on the continent but he hoped that SADC would begin to seriously discuss the matter during the on-going debate on the role parliaments.

"Zuma said the Parliamentary Forum, formed in 1996, provided a vehicle for interaction between parliaments and civil society but added that questions should be asked whether parliaments were accountable to the electorate. He called for openness in carrying forward the debate on democratisation and integration.

"Zuma however expressed concern about continuing conflict on the continent, citing it as an impediment to development and unity as envisioned by leaders calling for an African renaissance.

"‘Can we succeed in having Africa reborn in the face of conflict; of massacres...certainly it can only remain a slogan,’ he said.

"Southern Africa currently grapples with two major conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has sucked in six other African countries, and Angola, a 25 year old civil war impacting on many of its neighbours.

"He urged parliamentarians to seek African antidotes to African problems, saying traditional decision-making structures should be integrated into the modern parliamentary system to reflect a truly indigenous approach to law making. South Africa was currently formulating a policy on traditional leadership relating this to existing western style parliament.

"Most countries on the continent had adopted the Westminster parliamentary model but needed to focus on systems relevant to their own African conditions, he said."

Angola, Botswana, DRC, Lesotho, Namibia, Mozambique, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe constitute SADC.

The conference referred to was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Representatives of European Parliamentarians for Africa (AWEPA) and Non Governmental Organisations were present as observers.

SARDC is an independent institution involved in the collection, analysis and dissemination of information about the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its member states.

Southern African Research and Documentation Centre runs a "Sustainable Democracy" programme, which is a regional information programme on democracy and governance which aims to collect and disseminate information, and to share regional expertise within the 14-member Southern African Development Community (SADC), with the vision of strengthening sustainable democratic development. It is based on the perspective that, "Democracy is more than just an election. It is a culture that cannot be imposed but must be developed from within."

The central objective is to assist governments, organisations and people of the SADC region to move quickly and effectively toward the empowerment and involvement of people in development, through collection and provision of relevant and accessible information, based on national and regional perspectives – and through capacity-building for collecting, storing and accessing information on a sustainable basis.

SARDC’s Sustainable Democracy Programme is sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Southern Africa Regional Democracy Fund (SARDF).

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, has expressed the differences emerging between the US and the EU powers, particularly Germany, over the present US warmongering course. In an interview he gave to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Joschka Fischer declared, "No evidence has been presented to me that Osama bin Laden’s terror has something to do with the Iraqi regime." Further on he added that "the international coalition against terror is not in and of itself a blank cheque to invade some country, especially not unilaterally". He added for good measure that on these points "all the European foreign ministers agree".

The Minister for Europe, Peter Hain, gave a speech on relations between Britain and Germany on Wednesday, February 13: "A Strong Partnership in Europe". He was speaking at the launch of the joint publication of the Centre for European Reform (CER) and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. The pamphlet is entitled "Germany and Britain: An Alliance of Necessity".

Peter Hain’s speech highlighted that Britain and Germany are building a "progressive partnership" together – from the EU, to Wider Europe, to NATO and the Wider World – as demonstrated, he said, in Afghanistan.

The new CER pamphlet points out that the two countries are closer than they have been for a generation on many vital issues and that Europe needs Germany and Britain to form an alliance. It argues that the European Union lacks leadership and that the Franco-German relationship has become a drag on further progress. The authors assert that a strong partnership between Germany and Britain is necessary to overcome the EU’s inertia on tackling these crucial issues, and that on institutional reform, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder have a surprising convergence of views. The authors argue that the goals of reform in the eurozone and the liberalisation of Germany’s economy can only be achieved if Britain joins the euro.

Thousands of students will descend on central London on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, to voice their anger at the government's current student finance policies. To symbolise the state of their finances NUS is calling on all students to turn out dressed in red.

On Demo day students will march through central London along the most high profile route for generations. Following negotiations with both the police and the Greater London Authority NUS has secured a path that passes the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street, as well as a rally in Trafalgar Square.

Speakers for the event include London Mayor Ken Livingstone, NATFHE's Tom Wilson, the AUT's Natalie Fenton, Lib Dem MP David Rendel and Narinder from Big Brother.

The march will bring parts of London to a standstill and leave politicians and the public in no doubt at the contempt with which students regard the government’s current funding policies.

The march sets off at midday from Malet Street, ULU. Assemble 11.00 am.

The NUS has welcomed the reintroduction of grants in Wales but wonders: what about England?

It's now four months since the government acknowledged the failings of the current student finance system, the NUS says. Unbelievably, instead of relieving the burden, some of the options currently being considered will actually exacerbate the debt of thousands of students. The preferred option by the Treasury, commercial interest rate loans, would create an intolerable burden on students, with debt doubling every six years after graduation. NUS figures show that over just a ten-year period, the interest accrued at a market rate would be over £20,000.

Reports in the media last Wednesday suggested that the Prime Minister is considering restoring grants for Britain's poorest students. The reports say that Tony Blair is thinking of introducing a graduate tax to be paid over 25 years after leaving university.

Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, said: "Universities UK believes that there should be adequate support for the poorest students so that they are not deterred from entering higher education. We are aware that this [means-tested grants] is one of the options being considered. However, we are very clear that additional funding for students must not be at the expense of funding for institutions – as we've outlined in our submission to the government's 2002 spending review."

The NUS recently sent out the biggest single direct campaigning email in Britain. The email, urging students to let the Prime Minister know what they want out of the forthcoming student finance review, simultaneously hit a quarter of a million inboxes and NUS envisaged it being seen by thousands more students, friends and parents as it gets forwarded on.

The response is already enormous, and 2,000 responses were received in the first 48 hours alone – five or six per minute.

The email highlights the critical stage NUS, its members and the government are now at regarding the student finance review. It warns about the dangers of commercial interest rate loans and urges the recipients to lobby Downing Street through NUS, listing their own financial hardship and that of their contemporaries.

Commenting on the email, NUS National President Owain James said: "NUS has reached a critical stage in its campaign work. It is vital that students keep pressure on those at the top who, ultimately, will be deciding the fate of a whole new generation of students. This is the biggest student email campaign ever – along with the recent regional rallies, lobby of parliament and the national demonstration next year we are letting the government know the devastating consequences of their policies.

"NUS evidence shows that students and parents are overwhelmingly opposed to the current system – as the government found out in the last election. Six months on NUS is amazed to learn they are considering commercial interest rate student loans, increasing not decreasing debt. We are urging all students to tell the government about their own struggles and debt problems as well as driving for the introduction of grants and the abolition of fees."

THE EMAIL SAYS:

Dear Student

NUS has reached a crucial point in its campaign for a better deal for students with the announcement of the student funding review. Initially it looked like grants would return and that there would be a reduction in student contributions.

However, it now looks like commercial interest rates will be introduced for student loans which will actually lead to an increase in student debt on graduation because students will have to pay back huge amounts of interest on top of their loans.

On 25 October, a front page article in The Guardian contained leaked extracts of government plans. It stated that: 'Instead of being entitled to subsidised 'soft' loans which incur virtually no interest, most students would need to borrow money at commercial rates to help pay their living costs'. At commercial interest rates a £10,000 loan becomes over £30,000 after just 10 years, we think this would have a devastating effect on students many years after they have graduated.

We want as many students as possible to let the government know what they think. Write a short personal message to Tony Blair (you can use the text below for guidance) and email it to downingstreetletters@nus.org.uk and we will pass it on for you.

Add as much personal information about your financial situation as you have time to. How much debt will you have on graduation? Do you have to work part time to support yourself? Are your family able to help financially? Is debt putting you off university? We need as many students as possible to voice their opposition to these proposals that will leave most students worse off than now. Please take a minute to write and send your email and help support the thousands who are being priced out of education.

Yours sincerely

Owain James

NUS National President

PS Forward this message to parents, friends and family and urge them to join in.

'Dear Mr Blair

Students were really encouraged by your announcement of a funding review, but are worried by reports that no new investment is planned and that commercial rates on student loans are being considered.

Access to education should be determined by our ability, not by wealth. Please demonstrate your commitment to access to university by:

* introducing targeted maintenance grants
* ending upfront tuition fees
* extending Education Maintenance Allowances to all students in further education
* allowing students to access the benefits system as a safety net.

Please make ending student hardship and widening access your new year's resolution for 2002 by investing more in funding for students.'

Picketing workers laid off from a giftware plant are turning lorries away in a factory gate protest.

Around 180 staff at Archfold Ltd of Warstock in Birmingham have not been paid since January. Workers think that parts of the firm will be sold off without them seeing any of the proceeds.

Police are at the picket lines controlling the protest. Management have decided to meet workers' representatives to try and resolve the dispute.

On February 13, around 20 people gathered at the TUC Centre in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a meeting under the banner of the Society for Friendship with Korea (SFK). Alongside the Socialist Labour Party, supporters of the Northern Region of RCPB(ML) had enthusiastically supported the organisation of the meeting. This was the first meeting in the North East and followed the successful contribution of Eric Trevett to the South Tyneside May Day Rally last year on behalf of the Korean Friendship and Solidarity Campaign (KFSC). The meeting consisted of a talk by Blanch Carpenter who had taken part in a recent first delegation of the Socialist Labour Party to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. During the talk Blanch illustrated her visit with pictures of life in DPRK as well as a slide show of pictures taken by the delegation.

Blanch started by relating a brief history of the Korean people and the important contributions they had made to civilisation and world culture. Coming to the 20th century she conveyed the heroic struggle of the Korean people, their people’s organisations and their great leader Kim Il Sung in defeating first the Japanese invaders, then the US in the Korean War and then going on to rebuild the whole country and construct socialism.

She then went on to convey to the audience an account which revealed her great warmth for the Korean people and their way of life today. What particularly impressed her was a society completely at ease with itself, free from the anarchy and violence of western societies. Women were truly free to follow their professions and on a number of occasions she mentioned the special attention paid to caring for the children, something which she had never seen before. There were 40,000 crèches and Kindergartens and the after school palaces of culture where young people can pursue every kind of activity. She said that workers with more than three children worked less hours. Being a nurse she praised the modern health care system that had been established in Korea. The elderly were also highly respected and looked after and could work one day a week if they wanted to and be paid by the state. Speaking about the Workers' Party of Korea and the great leader Kim Jong Il she pointed out that the philosophy of Juche guided them and that this had been developed by Kim Il Sung and it put people at the centre of development of everything.

Blanch had visited the 39th parallel and was shown the room where the armistice had been signed. Whilst on the border she was photographed by US troops and this act left a deep impression on her. In her presentation she pointed out to the audience the great dangers coming from the US presence on the Korean peninsula. The 1975 UN resolution, which called on the US to conclude a peace agreement, had been ignored by the US. In addition, she spoke about the Korean People’s Army and the importance of the army-first policy. Unlike armies in the west which are for aggression abroad and separated from the people, it was an army that was at one with people and defended their socialist system and that directly participated in the people’s construction projects. She spoke about the great desire of the Korean people for the reunification of their country, with two separate systems within one confederation, and the work that had been done especially by the leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il to achieve this.

Summing up her visit she said that the people in the DPRK have a happy life and that everything essential for this is provided, with no unemployment and steady jobs, and a high level of culture. She said that visiting North Korea was truly a happy experience and a privilege.

After her presentation, which was warmly applauded by all the participants, Blanch answered many questions, whilst others also made contributions. It was emphasised that in the wake of September 11 it was important for progressive people to defend the right of the Korean people to decide their own future and continue to build the system of their own choice without the interference from the US, Britain and other powers. People were enthusiastic to continue to organise meetings of the SFK in the North East. After the talk people remained for a buffet, and discussion carried on until late in the evening.