Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honourable Dr I S G Mudenge

OPENING STATEMENT DELIVERED BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HONOURABLE DR I. S. G.. MUDENGE DURING THE OFFICIAL ZIMBABWE-EU CONSULTATIONS

The Presidents of the ACP Council and the European Union

Honourable Ministers;

Representatives of the EU Commissions

Excellencies

Distinguished Colleagues;

Ladies and Gentlemen;

It is an honour for me to share this platform with you, Honourable Presidents, as we formally launch the first-ever Zimbabwe-EU dialogue. Allow me on this occasion to express publicly my best wishes for the Spanish Presidency of the EU. Your country has been wise for so many centuries and can therefore certainly eminently handle for the next six months, the busy schedule ahead of you with sagacity and perspicacity. In the 17th century Zimbabwe was briefly a Spanish colony. To the President of the, ACP I say thank you for being there. Your country Nigeria has played a pivotal role in searching for a solution to the bilateral question of Zimbabwe- UK relations.

Excellencies,

It will be recalled that Zimbabwe signalled its readiness, as early as June last year, to launch the Zimbabwe-EU dialogue under Article 8, after the EU Troika in Harare and our own Core Dialogue Group of officials had elaborated a framework for dialogue on that platform. After successive EU presidencies had kept us on a long and unexplained standby, we were utterly dismayed at the sudden decision by the EU's General Affairs Council to move the Zimbabwe-EU dialogue to the Article 96 procedure. I personally conveyed through diplomatic channels and in writing to the previous two EU presidencies Zimbabwe's readiness to commence dialogue since June 2001 but for still quite inexplicable reasons my requests for the commencement of dialogue under Article 8 were never taken up. The reply I eventually got was to be informed that the EU General Council had decided to move away from Article 8 to Article 96 procedures. Why this unilateral action was taken still baffles us. To us this is a poor example of the spirit of partnership. However our disappointment notwithstanding, Zimbabwe took a prompt decision to accept dialogue under Article 96, on the understanding that:

a) It is a dialogue, not a monologue or a diatribe;

b) Both sides are committed to a positive outcome, as emphasized in Article 8, Article 96 and the intent and spirit of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement as a whole;

c) A dialogue that goes to the heart of the nature of the partnership between 15 EU countries and 71 ACP countries needs to have the support, involvement and intervention of as representative a sample of the ACP countries as possible, and its outcome must be wholly acceptable to the ACP and the EU;

d) The dialogue shall address root causes of problems experienced in Zimbabwe, and shall not exclude consideration, examination and joint decision on actions by member countries of the EU that have a bearing on the resolution of those problems;

e) Nothing in the dialogue should subvert progress being made in the African initiatives launched by President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, and in which a member of the EU is an integral and critical participant as well as the SADC initiative.

During preparations for dialogue under Article 8, we made it abundantly clear, and it was understood by the EU troika in Harare, as has been affirmed under the Abuja process that the concerns raised by the EU converged on the unresolved and central issue of land. To the extent that it has been possible to give the people of Zimbabwe a new hope on this fundamental matter, based on the Abuja Conclusions, tensions have markedly decreased, and a more conducive atmosphere for the orderly implementation of government programmes has been promoted. Police evidence indicates that there have been no fresh farm occupations since Abuja, and SADC Ministers and representatives of other observers have acknowledged and welcomed the steps taken by Government to facilitate the implementation of the Abuja Conclusions and the land reform programme in general.

However, I must point out that discouragement of the people in the form of statements from certain EU capitals, that seem to suggest a hesitant approach on the part of countries that made definite commitments at Abuja, is most unhelpful, and this is an area where Zimbabwe seeks the help and cooperation of its EU partners.

Confidence-building measures that appear one-sided to our people subvert the reality of partnership. While actions taken by the Government of Zimbabwe to implement Abuja are a matter of record, there is grave concern that the strategy of the UK, an EU member, is to make promises of assistance, then mobilize international opinion through its unfair access to global media outreach and the empathy of some of its North Atlantic friends to oppose such assistance in practice. This suspicion of lack of commitment is made more intense by repeated references that link the UK and "the international community" in hostile propaganda and actions against Zimbabwe, as this approach appears to be designed to distance the UK, an EU member, from its historical obligations, which are primarily bilateral in nature.

The UK has used its considerable holdings and or control of the media in Southern Africa and the UK to blackout truthful information about the significant, positive strides made by Zimbabwe in the very same areas identified by the EU as areas of concern. For our partnership, an important question to resolve is: in the ACP-EU Partnership, is good behaviour required also of EU countries or only of the ACP countries? It is time to answer that question for the sake of the Partnership.

The combination of the assault on Zimbabwe through media channels to which Zimbabwe is no match, with a direct assault on its sovereignty and on its democratic development by certain members of the EU, is a tragic illustration of the kind of hypocrisy that should find no comfort in such a partnership as ours. Some members of the EU have seriously undermined this partnership by getting actively involved in the politics of Zimbabwe, sponsoring and campaigning in favour of opposition movements and seeking the ouster, by all means, of the democratically elected government. The informal sanctions imposed on us by EU member countries concurrently with EU invitations to us to come and dialogue represent the nadir of cynicism. It is time that we dealt frontally and honestly with such subversive hypocrisy, otherwise, what principle can be safe?

The EU and Zimbabwe, in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, are meant to be closer and more responsible in the conduct of their relations than less committed others might be, whose reflex is to cut their losses and run at the slightest difficulty or incident. Our relations and partnership place obligations on us that are relational, programmatic and practical.

Firstly, these obligations are relational because relationships are the only sound basis for interaction. Where there is no relationship, there is no interaction. Where the relationship is a bad and unsustainable one, you hear talk of strictures and sanctions. Our partnership should not be like that. I must recall that the EU Troika in Harare and the Core Dialogue Group on the Zimbabwean side had worked hard and presented us, not with two contending pieces of paper or reports, but with a joint agenda that was based on our shared principles and a stubborn commitment to a process whose only acceptable outcome is jointly-crafted solutions. I move, Honourable Presidents, that we proceed in that same spirit, the change of platform notwithstanding.

Secondly, these obligations are programmatic in that our partnership agreement expresses itself in economic development co-operation programmes that are result-bound. As we launch this comprehensive dialogue, we must bear in mind that it is not only about problems, but also about where the opportunities are and where we can show our resolve to work together and produce positive results. The outcome of our dialogue should be that of partners emerging with a programme of closer co-operation that encompasses areas of opportunity as well as those of challenge.

Thirdly, the relationship between the ACP and the EU has always been distinguished by the fact that it is a practical relationship that expressed itself through access - through trade that is strengthened by contractual arrangements and through a co-ordinated posture as we face threats from developments such as globalisation. It is about access to each other's aspirations, interpretations and thought processes, and perforce demands sensitivity and patient listening skills. Out of this dialogue we expect Zimbabwe and the EU to evolve a good example of the triumph of reason over pettiness through a pragmatic engagement with issues and solutions, yielding a united vision of the way forward. I am certain that you will agree with me that our united constituency will not tolerate it if we emerged from this dialogue in any other way. They would rather we stayed cloistered in the discussion room until we found full understanding and achieved full accommodation. Our colleagues in the ACP, the OAU and SADC have certainly driven this point home to us in the most emphatic terms.

There are some things that must be excluded at the outset, and we are glad that the spirit of dialogue and partnership as we understand it excludes such things. Partnership is not about lecturing or talking down to, demanding obeisance or severing lifelines - that is supercilious vindictiveness. It is not about grovelling, begging and kow-towing, for that would be a selling out of the dignity of entire continents. It is not a partnership between "a horse and a rider" as one Prime Minister of the then Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland once defined partnership between whites and blacks. No, Dear Colleagues, the story we would rather tell the world is that the partnership between Zimbabwe and the EU is not doomed; it is too strong and too valuable to be destroyed by the occurrence of a series of incidents blown out of proportion by a sponsored media. Perhaps it will not be presumptuous to assume that you share that same conviction.

Yes, there are issues, and this is a fact of logic, for without them there would be no need for a dialogue. We must not shrink from engaging historical questions of cause and effect or from challenging ourselves with creative proposals on how this partnership can be put to work to remove contradictions and suspicions, and to redirect energies to delivering land to the land-starved people of Zimbabwe, and to promoting their well-being and prosperity in all spheres. There may be questions on some of these topics, and for some of those questions the answers are within easy reach. Where the complexity is somewhat more profound, we must rise to the challenge of finding the whys and wherefores, drawing on our fund of goodwill to analyse without rancour the underlying causes from which the rash of symptoms erupts.

Early in the dialogue, we must tackle the question of the colonial albatross that has poisoned ties between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom, a member of this partnership. We are of the firm conviction that the poison can be rid of for good, as our partnership is vested with the virtue to perform this beneficent exorcism. The only demon that can foil the power of our partnership to do just that, and to do it quickly, is a lack of will. Rest assured, Dear Colleagues, of Zimbabwe's willingness to go deep into the heart of the matter in a spirit of constructive partnership, with a view to helping the facts of history and the aspirations of the future Zimbabwe generations to guide us all in delivering durable and enduring solutions. I hope that these sentiments find resonance in your own heart.

I am fully confident that, once we have listened to each other's concerns and given ear to each other's answers, we can walk out of here and tell the world that we have eliminated concerns over such areas as the rule of law, a concern that has acquired a poignancy over the last two years because of efforts to effectively address the pressing question of historical injustices in the distribution of land among the people of Zimbabwe. You can guess already that we shall seek special help from you in this area, particularly as we perceive a need for the removal of the contradiction of an EU which articulates the sum of the views of its member states, and in the same breath disavows all responsibility for helping resolve problems arising from the policy posture of one of those member states. This would be analogous to the ACP looking passively on as Zimbabwe sets unacceptable precedents for it in its dialogue with the EU- a prospect that is obviously unthinkable.

A little history here cannot hurt. As we all know, the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe was fired by the people's deep desire to regain possession of land expropriated under colonial rule. Given that it ranked highest among the grievances that motivated indigenous people to launch and wage the liberation struggle, the land question was inevitably central to independence negotiations at Lancaster House in 1979. The talks almost broke down over the issue, and were deadlocked for a time. The impasse was only broken when both the British and American governments agreed to contribute to and mobilize financial support for a comprehensive land reform programme in independent Zimbabwe.

Yet successive British governments have sought to derail the land reform programme and have courted international sympathy for their objectives by publicly demonising President Mugabe and his government. Britain has used its membership of the EU to gain sympathy for white farmers in Zimbabwe and to try to evade its colonial responsibilities. The worries that other members of the EU have articulated, genuine as they might be, stem directly from the actions and inactions of the UK. To evade its responsibilities the UK has orchestrated an anti Mugabe and Zimbabwe campaign beginning with a number of conferences which advocated violent mischief against the democratically elected President of Zimbabwe and his democratically elected Government. It cannot be responsibly proposed by either of us that we gloss over this important matter and pretend to be having a meaningful dialogue. The minimum we must achieve on this occasion is to assign the highest priority to this pivotal matter on the agenda of the dialogue, and to require that substantive recommendations be made on how to resolve it within an urgent and specific time frame.

Before 1997 Zimbabwe was being touted as one of the emerging "African lions" in the British press with one of the best performing emerging stock exchanges. But after 1997 Zimbabwe was presented as a hopeless case. Why this change one may ask. What happened to bring this about?

Two things, in fact happened to produce the change. First Zimbabwe took steps to resolve the land question once and for all. Secondly, Zimbabwe took the principled decision to join other SADC allies in defending the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, at the request of that SADC country's legitimate Government. We only resorted to this action after the new Labour Government had reneged on the Lancaster House obligation to assist us with land reform. To quote the exact words of the then newly appointed Secretary of State Ms Clare Short:

"I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial Interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers".

With that letter the present UK/Zimbabwe impasse was born.

1997 was the watershed year for the British approach to Zimbabwe, and for its diplomatic thrust to affect how others thought about, and acted on, Zimbabwe. Our transgression that year was to legally compulsorily acquire nearly 1 500 farms owned by white Zimbabweans for the resettlement of landless peasants. We proceeded to designate the 1 500 farms for acquisition on that basis, and all hell broke loose.

Considering the influential interests affected by the decision to empower the Black people of Zimbabwe, British reaction was inevitable. It must not be forgotten that the dispossession of the African during colonial times empowered the colonizers, and any reversal of that disproportionate empowerment was bound to meet with resistance, notably from the metropolitan capital. After all, in the case of Zimbabwe, the land ownership register revealed that some members of the British House of Lords, and other individuals connected in some way to the British Establishment owned large tracts of land as absentee landlords. This is in addition to the nearly 4 100 white farmers, mainly of British extraction who owned nearly 70% of the best arable land in my country.

The British moved fast to try to block our initiative and the best minds were assigned to come up with an effective strategy to deal with the developments in Zimbabwe. It is, of course, not always clear how such schemes are set in motion, but what became abundantly clear at an early stage was that someone had decided that Zimbabwe should be dealt with ruthlessly and on every conceivable front, and that with great dispatch. Yes, there should be tarring and feathering, but the objective must be more practical and radical in character: President Mugabe and his Government must be removed, by hook or by crook and so it would appear preferably by crook!

First the EU was prevailed upon to commission a study on Zimbabwe. Such a report was duly prepared and presented to the EU's Africa Working Group for its use in making recommendations on Zimbabwe. Vagueness was not one of the weaknesses of that report. Its analysis and prognosis were forthright: for things to go "right" in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe must go. This could be done through civil society, notably the trade union movement or NGOs, through organised urban uprisings, the implied possibility of discontentment in the armed forces, the exploitation of perceived rifts in the ruling Party, ZANU-PF, and the transformation of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions into a political party. The prognosis for President Mugabe was that he would not last till the scheduled Presidential elections set for 2002. The EU report isolated land reform and Zimbabwe's presence in the DRC for special mention as causes of problems. We were shocked by the EU report when it came out. But that was only a beginning, worse was still to come.

At Chatham House, the EU Report's recommendations were carried forward with the same objective, namely the removal of President Mugabe and his Government. How this could be done was elaborated upon during a meeting of the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 24 January, 1999, at which the theme was "Zimbabwe-Time for Mugabe to Go?", Richard Dowden of The Economist guided the meeting through options in the enterprise of removing President Mugabe from power:

1) by military coup, though that might be at odds with democracy;
2) by election, though he did not hold out much hope for the opposition;
3) through upheavals in the streets; and
4) through manoeuvres within the Ruling Party, ZANU-PF.

President Mugabe's sins were defined as "confiscating" white-held land and sending troops to the DRC. The picture was clearer now and the strategies were set out.

A seminar under the title "Zimbabwe at the Crossroads" was held in the US State Department on 23 March, 1999 at which the strategy for dealing with the "Zimbabwe crisis" was further elaborated. Messrs Chester Crocker and Robert Rotberg were incisive in their analysis, and authoritative and robust in their prescriptions. What must be done, they argued, is to work through NGOs, find ways to divide the Shonas and the Ndebeles, probe the ruling party for weak spots with a view to subverting it, and generally make Zimbabwe ungovernable. Induced discontent and dissent should be carefully stoked and nurtured to achieve the desired end. Civil society must be "strengthened" for the task, and opposition parties induced to merge. Civil unrest should be assisted in and outside major cities to render Zimbabwe ungovernable, and covert assistance should be given to elements within the ruling party to promote fragmentation. The seminar-leaders at the State Department emphasized Zimbabwe's presence in the DRC as a problematic issue.

It is difficult to fault the synchronisation of thought and action in this endeavour. On the 28th of November, 1998, The Economist suggestively played with various scenarios:

There could, for instance, be developments along Indonesian lines. The economic situation is likely to worsen in 1999 and dissatisfaction will grow. The trade unions, which directly challenge the government, might call a five-day strike to demand early elections. If the government banned the unions and arrested their leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, furious crowds would take to the streets. After bloodshed, the government might fall.

Or there could be a palace coup against Mr Mugabe…one faction could conceivably decide to seize power.

Perhaps Britain and others of the North Atlantic ought to be congratulated for achieving such perfect congruency of thought with their media. But to congratulate them on that alone would not do them justice. On matters that touch the interests of kith and kin, to say nothing of holders of high office, the British in particular think, speak and act as one. A look at the patronage of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, which was formed in April 2000 for the purpose of fuelling dissent in Zimbabwe, is dramatically illustrative of the way in which the worry over the restoration of land to its rightful, indigenous owners by having whites of British descent share it with the indigenous majority transcends ideological and other differences: Former Secretaries of State, Lord Howe, Lord Hurd, Lord Carrington, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, joined Lords Steel of Aikwood, Taylor of Warwick, Lady Soames and Sir John Collins to form the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust to campaign against Zimbabwe on the international stage. The trans-Atlantic flavour is brought to this curious brew by Chester Crocker of the "Constructive Engagement" fame. It is not for me to say whether he is hoping for a peerage. Go to the internet to check on the regular virulently anti Zimbabwe propaganda churned out by this cabal

This unity of purpose is also revealed in the programmes of the Westminster Foundation to destabilise Zimbabwe through the direct funding of the opposition. This foundation is funded 95% by the British Government. Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as the leaders of the other major British political Parties are its patrons. I submit for the record a report of the funding of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe by the British Labour Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats from the funds of the Westminister Foundation. All the British major Parties are sponsoring and funding the main opposition party in Zimbabwe. Is this fair or promotive of democracy in Zimbabwe - No it is not. It is unacceptable interference in our internal affairs nay it is a recolonization of Zimbabwe. We reject it and we condemn it.

The full arsenal must, of course, be unleashed. When it comes to Zimbabwe, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals become one, because the steps taken by Zimbabwe to address the injustices created by British colonialism hurt the British establishment as a whole. An intervention by a member of the House of Commons during a recent debate is revealing in this regard:
"We cannot abandon the white farmers because we sent them there…."

The unfair media advantage I mentioned earlier has been used to maximum advantage by those who would like to see Zimbabwe fail. Again, whether it be the Financial Times, The Economist or the so-called "private" newspapers in South Africa or Zimbabwe, the editorial thrust is driven by a powerful coalition of shareholders and official interests in the United Kingdom. Hence stories about incidences in Zimbabwe are orchestrated as a catastrophe, and the reader is left uninformed of the reality being described. More people may die in elections in South Africa or elsewhere. Indeed the British Deputy Prime Minister may shut down an over-self expressive voter with his fist during an election. All this is reported as being quite normal. But let it happen in Zimbabwe, ah, rule of law has broken down!

Clearly, the problem with Zimbabwe's presence in the DRC is not the principle of it. If principles were the issue, the canons would be aimed at Uganda and Rwanda, who are the aggressors. We went by invitation, and in the company of two other SADC countries. No, it is clearly not about any principle. The problem is that our intervention frustrated powerful interests, for which the scenario that might have prevailed had we not intervened would have been conducive to their designs.

Given this knowledge, which I am certain we all know and must admit if we are honest, why are we here? Why are we beating about the bush and pursuing obvious red herrings? The whole world knows that Zimbabwe is the second longest-running stable multi-party democracy in Africa, and that since our independence in 1980, five elections have been held freely and fairly and on schedule. Why are aspersions cast on Zimbabwe's impeccable record, all of a sudden? Of course, I know, and you know, that the issue of elections in Zimbabwe cannot legitimately be placed on the agenda of our dialogue, as it does not arise, but I am simply inviting you to reflect on the irony, which must give us pause.

We come to Brussels at a time when there is real hope that Zimbabwe's commitment to resolving those problems that are in its power to resolve is yielding dividends. Our Land Resettlement Programme under the A1 settlement scheme is more or less completed, and we have embarked in earnest upon the commercially-driven A2 scheme. These programmes are being implemented in accordance with the laws and Constitution of Zimbabwe. Indeed, the Supreme Court has confirmed the consonance of the Programme with our Constitution, and with our laws. I believe this meeting will note this for the record, and formally retire a concern often expressed on the subject.

We come at a time when there is reason for friends to celebrate with us the removal of contradictions between laws and the interests of society. Our Parliament is to be commended for its untiring efforts to craft laws that every sensible citizen would be proud to be guided by, and which our judiciary can adjudicate without having to go to confession immediately afterwards.

The SADC Ministerial Task Force on Zimbabwe was with us recently, and expressed its satisfaction with the significant reduction of tensions and violent incidents in the country. They encouraged us to continue with the efforts we are making to maintain the atmosphere of calm prevailing in the country. I submit a report drawn up by the Commissioner of Police to give a picture of the true situation in Zimbabwe today.

No, we are not in Utopia-not yet anyway. It would be unrealistic to expect that extreme elements in our society would take things lying down. It may take more time and persuasion to convince some former owners of multiple farms that it is in everyone's best interests to allow production to go forward under the new settlement pattern, rather than to stir their workers into attacking settlers and provoking retaliatory violence. It may take even longer to convince some white Zimbabwean commercial farmers that the British High Commission is not the complaints department of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The internet still buzzes with concocted stories created in cyberspace by those who are nostalgic for the good old days of racial discrimination and UDI. And EU newspapers still pick these stories up, add wind to them, and fly the balloon across the globe. No, we are not yet in Utopia.

Well, we are here, and we must dialogue. Since this is largely uncharted territory that we are about to enter, we have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the ACP, the African region and the Southern African sub-region are fully associated with what we are doing to demonstrate to the world that the partnership they subscribe to is a partnership that works. This is of course both a logical and a moral imperative as it would be wrong to conduct a consultation that may set a precedent for future such dialogues without involving our fellow members of the ACP group.

We must, of course, engage the question of how the progress of the consultations will be assessed. At first, we were alarmed, disheartened and quite frankly offended when it seemed from the speculations of some, including Zimbabwe's private press, that Europe would be the imperial judge of the success or otherwise of the exercise. We trust that the temptation to accept such an analysis has been effectively resisted. This is particularly important considering the seeming endorsement given to such gloomy prophesies by the EU's decision to abandon Article 8 dialogue just as it was about to begin, in promising circumstances.

We, likewise, trust that another temptation, namely that of rushing to achieve nothing at whatever cost, has also been resisted in favour of the comprehensive, balanced and deep dialogue leading to commitments on both sides that the Cotonou Partnership Agreement requires. In the same manner in which you will be apprising the membership of the EU on progress, we shall be keeping the ACP, the AU and the SADC abreast of developments, and soliciting guidance as necessary.

What are the results we want from our dialogue? I am sure that, in summing them up, I am indulging in tautology, as the list was reflected in the outcome of the officials' frame-work exercise, when we were preparing for dialogue under Article 8. However, it will not hurt us to say again that what we expect from the dialogue is as follows:

• A reaffirmation that the partnership between the EU and Zimbabwe should express itself through mutual respect, equality and closer co-operation in areas such as trade, investment and aid in order to achieve solutions to the jointly recognised challenges between Zimbabwe and the EU and mobilise support for Zimbabwe's development programmes.
• A deeper appreciation by the EU of the political, economic and social imperatives of land reform and the defining of a constructive role for the EU in its implementation. The dialogue should also help to remove the difficulties in relations between Zimbabwe and Britain, and especially seek ways by which the British can recognise and support Zimbabwe's democratic government and its elected Head of State and provide funds for compensation and resettlement of landless people in fulfilment of historical obligations
• The unimpeded growth of democracy in Zimbabwe on the basis of internationally accepted principles with due regard given to Zimbabwe's historical, social and cultural circumstances.
• The creation of conditions for deeper co-operation between Zimbabwe and the EU in the economic development of Zimbabwe and the promotion by this means of a mutually beneficial partnership in trade and investment. In the same vein, the dialogue should lead to greater inflows of
  investment from the EU, reduce undue conditionalities and establish a win-win relationship in economic co-operation.
• The emergence of a set of positive and replicable precedents for future dialogue between members of the ACP Group and the EU, and between members of the North-South partnership in general.
• An acceleration of the momentum of President Obasanjo's initiative to restore cooperation between Britain and Zimbabwe on the basis of the provision by Britain of significant financial assistance for Zimbabwe's Land Reform and Resettlement Programme.

In addition, in the interest of promoting the partnership between the EU and Zimbabwe the present informal sanctions imposed by a number of EU countries through the cutting off of aid, support of opposition parties and issuing of threats against Zimbabwe must cease.

On this basis, let our dialogue begin in earnest. On our part, we are ready to engage our partners of the EU, as well as elucidate our own very real concerns. In the true spirit of Partnership, we must tackle all these concerns fully and frankly.
I thank you.