Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honourable Dr I S G Mudenge

WELCOME STATEMENT BY THE HON. DR I.S.G. MUDENGE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE SADC TASK FORCE MINISTERS - 30TH JANUARY 2002

Honourable Lilian Patel, Chairperson of the SADC Task Force Ministerial Committee on Zimbabwe,

Honourable Ministers,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen.

On the previous missions to Zimbabwe undertaken by the SADC Task Force, both at the level of Heads of State and Government in September and subsequently during the mission undertaken by the Ministers on 11 and 12 December, the Task Force heard and assessed the representations made by the various stakeholders representing the widest possible spectrum of Zimbabwean society. When I wrote to the Chairperson of the Task Force at ministerial level on January 25, 2002, it was my government's intention that besides the usual invitation to the SADC Parliamentary Forum to witness our forthcoming Presidential elections, it would be a good thing if the SADC Task Force could also witness the beginning our Presidential elections as well the final phase of these elections.

I am glad you have been able to come and I hope you will also be able to come during the last week of the elections. We feel that this is a good turn you are doing to Zimbabwe for it allows you to be witnesses to the exciting process by which the people of Zimbabwe exercise their sovereign right to elect a President of their choice as guaranteed by their constitution.

Dear Colleagues, You are most welcome indeed. This is your country. Feel free and be at home!

BLANTYRE DECISIONS

When our chairperson received my invitation she quickly came back to me and suggested we also take the opportunity to review developments since the Blantyre Summit. I told her that I was ready to brief you, my colleagues, on the actions being taken to implement these Blantyre decisions .

Since Blantyre the Zimbabwe government has taken a number of initiatives to implement most of the Blantyre decisions in relation to Zimbabwe. Already our Electoral Supervisory Commission has identified national trainers of monitors in accordance with the country's constitution and has started its training programmes for these officials. A countrywide voter education programme has been launched and is currently under way, as members of the Committee will observe from the media.

In addition the government has requested the Electoral Supervisory Commission to coordinate the drafting of a Code of Conduct in consultation with the Political Parties intending to contest the Presidential elections.

The process of inviting international observers started a week ago and is continuing. Indeed this mission of the Ministerial Task Force is part of that process of allowing international observers to witness the conduct of our elections, beginning with the nomination of candidates tomorrow, which you will witness. SADC observers obviously deserve priority since we have this tradition and practice in the region of observing each other's elections through the SADC Parliamentary Forum.

Furthermore, H.E. President Mugabe reaffirmed in his announcement on 28 January, as I did in my letter to the EU on 18 January, that international journalists will be invited to cover our Presidential election as in the past, in accordance with the laid down laws, regulations and procedures. Arrangements are being put in place for the accreditation of foreign journalists through Zimbabwe's diplomatic missions abroad.

The Members of this Ministerial Committee will be fully briefed on the actions that are being taken to deal with the problem of violence which has taken place in some parts of the country. Both the Government and the ruling party ZANU (PF) have launched a campaign against political violence evidenced by the statements repeatedly made in the media by the President himself, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Commissioner of Police, and the Political Commissar of the ruling party, among others. I hope all members will be able to visit some of the areas where some of the violence has occurred.

Further to that, H.E. the President has announced that he will soon be inviting all the political parties, chiefs, churches, war veterans, farmers' unions, trade unions, business associations, media houses, women and youth organisations as well as other civic organisations, to meet and exchange views on charting a peaceful way forward by finding ways of curtailing the incidents of violence. This is very much in line with the assurances President Mugabe gave to his colleagues in Blantyre.

The recently gazetted Public Order and Security Act will go a long way in empowering the police to take appropriate action in dealing with incidents of political violence and terrorism.

The Government of Zimbabwe continues to uphold the freedom of expression and there are no cases of anyone being tried or having been held in custody for expressing his or her own opinion since the Blantyre Summit.

The Government of Zimbabwe remains unequivocally committed to respecting the independence of the Judiciary as enshrined in our Constitution. The Judiciary has continued to function robustly and independently with the opposition recently winning two cases in the High Court : Case No 11843/11, Morgan Tsvangirai vs The Registrar General of Elections and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Case No HC738/2002, Combined Harare Residence Association vs The Registrar General of Elections. The Government has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in one of the cases.

In brief the Blantyre decisions on Zimbabwe are being implemented, except that the negative propaganda against Zimbabwe in the international press and through pirate radio stations in the UK and Holland has intensified. We thank those SADC countries that have criticised these clandestine activities.

EU-ZIMBABWE RELATIONS
Your Excellencies

It may be necessary to recall that when the European Union arbitrarily decided to move the Zimbabwe-EU dialogue from Article 8 to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, Zimbabwe protested at this unilateral act and expressed its serious doubts as to the sincerity of the EU in the whole dialogue exercise. That not withstanding, Zimbabwe, without any preconditions, agreed to hold consultations both under Articles 8 and 96 with the European Union and to underline this willingness, a high-powered delegation comprising five Ministers travelled to Brussels this January for the purpose. Zimbabwe, in the true spirit of the Cotonou partnership Agreement and in good faith, supplied the EU with all the relevant information required for a thorough examination of the situation with the view to having a deep and serious dialogue.

Article 96 clearly stipulates the time frame within which consultations should take place, i.e. 15 days after issuing the invitation. Article 96 further states that the dialogue should continue for a period established by mutual agreement or for sixty days, depending on the nature and gravity of violation. Since no mutually agreed date was fixed, it was correct for Zimbabwe to assume that the Parties would be consulting with the 60 days review period in mind. The deadline of 3 February 2002 peremptorily announced by the General Affairs Council at its meeting of 28 January 2002, does not only come as a surprise, but also clearly, the demands made by the EU General Affairs Council came as a shock to us as they demonstrate that we hold very different interpretations of the nature of our relationship and understanding of the meaning of Article 96.

We have raised our concerns about what we view as a master-servant relationship in the manner that the EU imposed demands and ultimatums on us throughout the process of the so-called dialogue. In effect we have had no dialogue but a monologue for although we have raised our own concerns about external interference by some European countries that not only provide funding to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) but also authorize the broadcasting from their territories, by their nationals of hostile and inciting propaganda against the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe, we have received neither a response nor an acknowledgment. How can this be described as a dialogue of partners when the concerns of one partner only are addressed? Furthermore informal sanctions imposed by some European countries on Zimbabwe militate against a constructive dialogue, which would adequately address the concerns of both parties.

None of the concerns that we have raised have been addressed, as we would expect within the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement. The conclusion of the EU's General Affairs Council on 28 January clearly illustrate this persistent refusal by the EU to address Zimbabwe's concerns. Once more, another ultimatum has been issued to Zimbabwe concentrating on the EU's demands without paying any attention to our concerns. After only one meeting the EU has unilaterally decided to close Article 96 consultations and implement "targeted sanctions" if we do not meet a series of demands including accepting the deployment of an EU observation team by 3 February 2002! It is the position of my Government that there is nothing in the Cotonou Agreement giving the EU the right to make such a demand or issue such an ultimatum. We dispute such an interpretation of the Cotonou Agreement. We assert that this is inconsistent with the agreement. We therefore intend to exercise our right to invoke the provisions of Article 98 of the Cotonou Agreement to declare a dispute between Zimbabwe and the EU.

At its 29 October 2001 meeting, the EU General Affairs Council announced that "The European Union will give strong weight to ensuring coordination and complementarity with the efforts of SADC and the Abuja process vis-à-vis Zimbabwe". Now we are better informed on the "strong weight" as well as "coordination and complementarity" EU style. To me it seems like the old story of "We decide and you follow" attitude .

UK-ZIMBABWE RELATIONS

Your Excellencies

I now wish to turn to the Commonwealth where, once again, as in the EU, the UK is trying to influence some members of that Association to which we belong, particularly the old "dominions", namely Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to gang up against Zimbabwe in defence of the white Zimbabweans.

Through deliberate manipulation of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) procedures, the UK and its allies have persistently and unprocedurally interfered in the affairs of Zimbabwe.

On three occasions, CMAG has discussed and issued statements on Zimbabwe under the item "Any Other Business" on their Agenda. On each occasion, the Government of Zimbabwe has reacted to these statements by pointing out that CMAG had acted unprocedurally and completely out of its terms of reference as provided for in the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration of Principles which created the CMAG and spelt out its terms of reference.

The Action Programme and the Declaration remit to CMAG situations where an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected Government occurs.

At the Commonwealth Heads of State and Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 1999 at Durban, CMAG sought to have its mandate extended to explicitly include Commonwealth countries where no unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected Government had occurred. As the then Chairman of CMAG, I presented the CMAG case assisted by the present Secretary General of the Commonwealth Mr Don McKinnon who was Vice Chairman of CMAG at the time. In spite of our eloquent presentation and extensive elaboration in defence of our proposals, the Heads of State and Government did not grant this request. Instead they referred the matter to the High Level Review Group (HLRG), which had just been set up.

On 20 December 2001, CMAG purported to have added Zimbabwe to its formal Agenda. This was in contemptuous disregard of the Durban CHOGM decision to refer to the HLRG the CMAG request to involve itself in the conduct of democratically elected Governments. Meanwhile, the HLRG at the officials level has already produced a report, which has been circulated to all Commonwealth Governments. The report underlines the importance of total transparency when a democratically elected Government is accused of violating the Harare principles. I wish to emphasize that Zimbabwe has not violated these principles.

Specifically, in their report, the High Level Review Group agreed that CMAG's mandate as it relates to the unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government is clearly defined in the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme and needs no further elaboration; and that the issue requiring attention was the need to clarify procedures to apply in other circumstances where a member country is perceived to be in serious or persistent violation of the Harare Commonwealth principles.

The HLRG report goes on to recommend that, where such a perception was formed, thorough consultations be undertaken involving the Commonwealth Chairperson-in-Office, the Secretary General, the member making the allegations, as well as the member which is the subject of these allegations.

The intention here is very clear. Before any country where no democratically elected Government has been overthrown can be put on the CMAG Agenda, someone has to lay the charges and substantiate them. Then the accused country is offered the opportunity to respond. Then an evaluation would be made.

The contradiction in CMAG placing Zimbabwe on its Agenda is that CMAG itself, in its Concluding Statement of 4 September 2001 endorsed, without reservation, the recommendations of the Senior Officials of the High Level Review Group envisaging elaborate consultations before CMAG can involve itself in the affairs of a democratically elected Government.

Your Excellencies,

It is therefore most disturbing that CMAG, having on 4 September 2001 endorsed without reservation these recommendations could on 20 December 2001 decide to add Zimbabwe, a democratically elected Government, onto its Agenda.

This is a flagrant violation of the rules of the Commonwealth and the natural law of justice.

Clearly, someone has an agenda here. It is well known that the dispute on Zimbabwe arises from the reneging by Britain on its historical colonial obligations. The United Kingdom should not be allowed to abuse its privileged position within the CMAG to justify its failure to honour its obligations on land in Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth, many of whose members played such a crucial role in the Lancaster House negotiations, has a duty to remind the UK of its historical obligations to pay for land acquisition in Zimbabwe.

The Government of Zimbabwe has carried out the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe in accordance with the laws and constitution of Zimbabwe. If the United Kingdom has any allegations against my country, let it make them openly and substantiate them as recommended by the High Level Review Group.

While an instrument such as CMAG is a useful innovation for the promotion of Commonwealth political values, Your Excellencies will agree with me that Member States in any organization should not allow their organization to be manipulated and abused by the strong and powerful that would be seeking to promote their national agendas.

Your Excellencies

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. Zimbabwe rejects outright such unequal relations among sovereign states.

It is precisely for this reason that we cannot accept election observers from countries that interfere in our internal affairs or impose sanctions against us while at the same time demanding that we should accept them as impartial observers.

THE ZIMBABWE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MANDATE FROM THE FREE AND PROUD PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE TO RETURN THIS COUNTRY TO A COLONIAL OR NEO-COLONIAL STATUS. Too much blood was shed and much suffering endured to achieve our independence and regain our sovereignty for anyone to imagine they can either dictate or intimidate us into submission.

The answer to that is a categorical and inflexible NO!

Finally let me express the profound gratitude of the Government and People of Zimbabwe to those Commonwealth SADC Countries represented in London which have conveyed their written objections to CMAG, contrary to set procedures, deciding to put Zimbabwe on its agenda. The people and government of Zimbabwe will forever be grateful for this act of concrete solidarity.

Dear Brothers and Sisters

I welcome you again to Zimbabwe. Feel free to advise, to suggest and propose the best way we can promote our shared vision of a united, prosperous and peaceful SADC, our home and common heritage.

I thank you.