By Gillian Jones
Britain was perplexed by the South Africa government's attitude towards Zimbabwe, senior British parliamentarian Donald Anderson said on Tuesday.
"We are puzzled by the South African government's attitude to Zimbabwe because South Africa is such a successful model of transition," he told reporters.
"We thought South Africa would be in the leading role on human rights," he said, commenting on South Africa's policy of "quiet diplomacy" as a means of dealing with human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.
| 'South Africa is paying the price for what is happening in Zimbabwe' |
Anderson is chairperson of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, which is in South Africa on a fact-finding mission.
"It would be better for foreign investors in South Africa if the government had a clear stance on human rights. South Africa is paying the price for what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Continues Below ↓
"From the British point of view, we can see the costs, including financial costs. Foreign capital is a scarce resource and it will go where investors (have positive impressions). It may be difficult for South Africa to separate itself from Zimbabwe in the perceptions of foreign investors."
He said before they arrived in South Africa, the committee were puzzled why South Africa did not recognise this.
Since their arrival, he said they had heard various reasons why the country continued with "quiet diplomacy".
| 'Since we have been here we have received a more balanced and nuanced view' |
"Since we have been here we have received a more balanced and nuanced view."
One opinion was that letting Zimbabwe completely collapse would affect South Africa because of an influx of Zimbabwean refugees and the adverse economic effects.
Anderson said there were ties of solidarity between South Africa and Zimbabwe, "although there were problems here with the reverence of Robert Mugabe" as a liberation leader.
"But from the British perspective human rights are human rights, and this is not altered by the Limpopo (River)," said Anderson.
He did concede that there was a "possibility of making progress with quiet diplomacy".
"If Britain takes a leading role (against Zimbabwe) it would play into the hands of Mugabe's government."
The British could then be accused of being "white colonialists" telling Zimbabwe how to run its affairs.
"What I am quite sure is for us to shout from the rooftops would be counter-productive."
On the other hand, he said: "We have to be consistent with our general stance on human rights."
He said they could not discriminate between black and white human rights violations.
Anderson said the committee thought it was important to visit South Africa after its first 10 years of democracy.
Besides South Africa's relationship with Zimbabwe, the committee would investigate South Africa's role in the Commonwealth, the impact of the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development, and South Africa's contribution to the war against terrorism.
The committee would meet various interest groups in South Africa, including business and government.
When they returned to Britain the committee would compile a report and make recommendations on their findings. This would be handed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and be available in May or June.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not obliged to carry out the recommendations.
The parliamentary committee included seven Labour Party members, three Conservative Party members and one Liberal Democrat. - Sapa
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
