Labour members - rediscover your voice: Zimbabwe

Peter Kenyon Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Earlier this week my Labour Party branch met and among other business considered an Emergency Resolution on Zimbabwean refugees condemning the Home Office and calling for leave to remain while terror and starvation rule. Even ardent opponents of resolution bound policy making supported the call. For me it is a further example of the need for Party checks and balances to be restored.




Resolutions are expressions of opinion from people who share a set of values, and ambitions. Centralised political control of the Labour Party has seriously eroded membership and activism, it's time for Labour members to rediscover their voices and tell the Leadership regularly what's a winner, and what's a loser - not just on blogs but through collective organisation. There is no reason why this has to be left to humanitarian and Church lobby groups. I'm proud of Labour Values. And I think we should practice what we preach.
On the subject of Zimbabwean refugees there was a hint at PMQs by Harriet Harman that the issue was under review. Today's Independent reports movement in the Government's position. The critical issue is leave to remain AND work.
What happened to your moral compass, Prime Minister?



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Labour members - rediscover your voice: Zimbabwe | 11 comments (11 topical)

Re: Labour members voice on Zimbabwe (#1)

by sunderkatwala on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM GMT

Peter

I agree on the need to treat Zimbabweans in the UK in a way which matches our government's criticism. As I understand it, the Home Office has stopped removals and allowed leave to stay to those whose asylum claims had been refused. The further demand of Friday's protest was for the right to work, which I support. John Sentamu's interview with the Today programme on Friday morning 

But the language of condemnation and "where's your moral compass" seems to me somewhat misplaced on the issue of Zimbabwe. 

The UK government has sought to put concerted multilateral pressure in support of Zimbabweans democratic rights (while having to be aware of Mugab's wish to play a colonial card as the only argument he has left). The Prime Minister got a tough statement on Zimbabwe at the G8. Britain was in the majority on the UN Security Council, but the bid for sanctions has now failed due to vetoes from Russia and China.

It seems to me that - beyond intergovernmental diplomacy, where the prospects currently look rather bleak (with continuing violence and militarisation; a lot of pressure on the MDC to enter a government of national unity as a junior partner to Mugabe and Zanu-PF; and where the idea of a transitional government to prepare for an internationally observed election seems to lack support), the Labour party, the trade unions and others should now be looking for practical ways that we can show solidarity and support for Zimbabwean democratic politics, for trade unions, free media, and the conditions for the democratic politics we take for granted in the UK but which are clearly no less valued by most Zimbabweans despite the repression and violence they face in trying to determine their own future democratically.
 



Re: Labour members voice on Zimbabwe (#2)

by sunderkatwala on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM GMT

PArt of a sentence disappeared:

I meant to say that Sentamu's interview on the Today programme recognised there were some complex issues in how a right to work would operate (for those with exceptional leave to remain but without refugee status), but also that there seemed to be an openness to seeking a resolution. I hope that is right.

If the government were conducting removals, I think the type of condemnation you suggest would be appropriate. My understanding is that they are not.


(By the way, this is not to defend the totality of our asylum policy, of which I have frequently been critical).


 

 



[ Parent ]

Re: Labour members voice on Zimbabwe (#3)

by jkitleft on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:32:47 PM GMT

I think the UN security council vote only highlights that the voting structure needs to be reformed. It is disgraceful that China can exacerbate tyranny to Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, and Sudan through the safety of its UN seat.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour members voice on Zimbabwe (#4)

by rwendland on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:23:58 PM GMT

Is it the voting structure or the currently defined UNSC role?

My understanding is the UNSC is only supposed to act under the United Nations Charter (Chapter VI/VII) when there is a dispute between countries that could lead to war - which is not the case for Zimbabwe. Seems to me China and Russia are correct in international law terms that this is a stretch too far for the UNSC. UNSC role, as defined in the Charter, does not cover enforcing internal elections, however gruesome things get within a country.

Maybe not how we would like it, but that does seem to be the current position. If we want a global elections policeforce, we need to create a consensus for that - and should that include counting chads in Florida?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour members voice on Zimbabwe (#9)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:09:01 PM GMT

Dear Sunder

Thanks for joining in this debate.

I have replied to your comments on my questioning of Gordon's moral compass in my reply to Free Radical below.

I find it morally repugnant that refugees with leave to remain in this country are not allowed to work, no ifs and no buts.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Zimbabwe - and other Brown disasters (#5)

by NB on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM GMT

UNSC can act under the "Duty to Protect".  Sadly Gordon's appalling lack of diplomatic skills meant that he so alienated people (esp the Russians) at the G8 that the supposed condemnation at the G8 turned into a Russian and Chinese veto at the UN where it matters.

 If the only consequence of Gordon's continuing in office was the near-annihilation of the Labour Party this would be a private tragedy. But his continuing as PM damages the economy and Britian's standing in the world - and in this case costs many lives in Zimbabwe and other places where Britain should have influence.

PS Mugabe naturally points out that, unlike Gordon, at least he has been elected as President. Crude, grossly unfair, and misleading.  But sadly, effective and technically true.


Re: Zimbabwe - and other Brown disasters (#6)

by rwendland on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:38:30 PM GMT

The proposed resolution asserted "that the situation in Zimbabwe poses a threat to international peace and security in the region", as I believe is required for Chapter VII actions, rather than any "Duty to Protect". I cannot see any mention of a "Duty to Protect" in Chapters V thru VII - I'd be interested in your source for that understanding of UNSC's criteria to act.


[ Parent ]

Re: Zimbabwe - and other Brown disasters (#11)

by NB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:31:57 PM GMT

Sorry it's Responsibility to Protect - see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour members - Zimbabwe (#7)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM GMT

Why spoil a good post on a very serious issue with a fatuous remark like "What happened to your moral compass, Prime Minister?"


Re: Labour members - speak up on Zimbabwe (#8)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM GMT

Dear Free Radical


Quite the opposite. My understanding of the word 'fatuous' is that it means: obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly, content in one's foolishness 

Prime Ministers are paid very substantial sums of public money to maintain an overview of government policy. It has been obvious since shortly after the first round of the recent Zimbabwean elections that violence against the person was being used as a poitical weapon against Mugabe's political opponents. I expect pro active political leadership from Labour in government.

Gordon Brown's apparent failure to initiate a review of policy towards Zimbabwean refugees, whilst deploying diplomatic pressure to promote regime change in Zimbabwe in line with the results of the first round of elections is inconsistent with his public claims to a moral compass.


Re: Labour members - speak up on Zimbabwe (#10)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM GMT

The trouble is that you make a very good point - and I was also appalled to learn of the government's policy on Zimbabwean refugees when it came out in the press. But then you conflate it with another personal snipe at Brown which I think is silly, destructive, and adds nothing to the debate. For me, your rhetoric only detracts from your main point.

Also, for someone standing for the NEC, you may well consider how such remarks of yours may be recycled through media currently displaying great hostility to the government and the party.


[ Parent ]

Labour members - rediscover your voice: Zimbabwe | 11 comments (11 topical)