ADDRESS BY THE SENIOR SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CDE. W. A. CHIWEWE, ON “ZIMBABWE IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT” AT THE DIPLOMATIC COURSE ORGANIZED BY THE ZIMBABWE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE: 4^TH JULY 2002.

 Ladies and Gentlemen,

 May I begin by thanking the Directing Staff of the Zimbabwe Foreign Service Institute for inviting me to address this first Diplomatic Course run under their directorship. I am particularly grateful because the invitation has included me in the list of lecturers and resource persons who have quick-started the institute giving it a powerful send-off into the future.

 May I urge the Directing Staff to compile the various contributions and presentations into a volume entitled: The Zimbabwe Foreign Service Institute: Inaugural Lectures and Presentations, or some such title that would cover this Inaugural Lecture Series.

 I have been requested to address you on the topic: Zimbabwe in the International Context. I have decided to treat the subject along the following headings:

1.       Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom;
2.       Zimbabwe and the European Union;
3.       Zimbabwe and the United States;
4.       Zimbabwe and the SADC;
5.       Zimbabwe and the OAU/AU;
6.       Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth;
7.       Zimbabwe and Asia/Latin America/the Caribbean;
8.       Zimbabwe and the ACP/NAM/G77;
9.       Zimbabwe and the UN.

I have seen this as the most straightforward approach by which it may be very easy to show Zimbabwe’s role and status in the international community. Zimbabwe’s status in the international community has risen or fallen in relation to the political and economic assumptions and perceptions which these axial forces hold with respect to Zimbabwe’s domestic policies and the actions she has taken to fulfill these. It is therefore appropriate that we briefly sate the political and economic assumptions that these various entities hold both about themselves and about Zimbabwe.

1.       Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom

High among Britain’s political values are the issues of democracy, human rights, good governance, national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Her basic economic values include poverty eradication, economic well-being and sustainable development. It is interesting to note that by any standards, the values and policies of the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state are not at variance at all with those of Zimbabwe. Is it not a contradiction then, that while the political values of Zimbabwe and Britain appear to be in consonance, bilateral relations between the two countries are characterized by suspicious distances and mutual antipathy?

It is apparent, therefore, that in the formulation of her attitude toward Zimbabwe, Britain has receded from the norm of acceptable value systems in the domain of international relations and, instead has opted to pursue a selfish, national and egoistical agenda, whose mainstay a predatory vilification of Zimbabwe. Having been the imperial power over Zimbabwe until 1980, Britain has extreme difficulty in accepting Zimbabwe’s independence under an African Government. As a result, it has retained a paternalistic, neo-colonialist and racist policy and posture upon Zimbabwe’s political and economic growth and development. At any rate, the British educational system, and the way it had structured the Zimbabwean society, had virtually succeeded in making Africans accept a second-class place. The phenomenon of “surrogacy” so pervasive in opposition-politics in Zimbabwe today gives credence to the virtual success of colonial education in making some Zimbabweans negate their individual and national dignity and independence.

Paternalism impels the United Kingdom to continue to believe that Africans cannot make sound decisions for themselves and so need the advice and care of white people, preferably of Anglo-Saxon extract.

Partly as the result of their paternalism, successive British Governments have promoted the flawed view that indigenous blacks cannot grow enough crops to feed themselves. They need white farmers to grow food for them. In the same vein, they would not allow Africans to run former European churches and schools. At the political level, the British did not believe that an African political party, no matter how popular, could win an election without the assistance of a white person.

Those political parties that believed they could win an election and run the government without the assistance of the British, or of a white person from like-minded white nations have been viewed as an unnatural phenomenon to be suspected, or destroyed completely. Such parties are viewed as a great threat that has to be treated with the most extreme suspicions and have to be resisted everywhere they occur, in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. Our commitment to the creation of a just and independent society threatens the historic advantage of the Anglo-Saxons since colonial days.

Britain’s neo-colonialist interests in Zimbabwe are built upon the element of greed. As a former colonial power that is intimately acquainted with the mineral and other natural resources across the breadth of Zimbabwe’s territory, Britain, driven by burning envy and greed, has sought to continue to monopolise the hold on Zimbabwe’s raw materials.

With a sizeable remnant of her Anglo-Saxon kith and kin maintaining residence and citizenship in Zimbabwe, Britain has spared no effort in her efforts to perpetuate white minority privileges in Zimbabwe at the exclusion and expense of the black majority. Consequently, Britain has succeeded in taking the fight into the Commonwealth and the EU, where she has benefited from the sympathies and lobby of other Anglo-Saxons.

The conflict between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom is an anti-colonial and liberation struggle on the part of Zimbabwe, and an imperialist war of control on the part of the United Kingdom.

2.             Zimbabwe and the European Union

When the European Union invited Zimbabwe to dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, it highlighted the following as the political and economic values that were to guide the dialogue:

·          Democracy
·          Good governance
·          Human rights
·          Rule of law with regard to land reform
·          Sound economic management principles

 Once again, an honest look at the list will not reveal a taint of variance between the EU’s professed values and those for which the people of Zimbabwe paid the highest price to attain for themselves and their future generations.

The European Union shares sympathies with one of its constituent members whose colonial empire included Zimbabwe. It is relevant to ask why Zimbabwe should be at the receiving end of the EU’s capacity to hate and chastise when in fact the Government of Zimbabwe as indeed the ordinary Zimbabweans committed resources and lives to establish democracy, good government, human rights, social justice and the establishment and growth of just laws in this country. Which democracy do they want us to follow, which good governance, which human rights, which laws and indeed which social justice? Is it black or white? Thus the EU, like Britain, maintains and pursues paternalistic, neocolonialist and racist interests with regard to Zimbabwe. Through Britain’s patronage over Zimbabwe, the EU stands to benefit by maintaining intact its sphere of influence in Africa. Furthermore, the cheap raw materials scooped by Britain from Zimbabwe were traded on the European market, allowing the European Union to benefit from Britain’s colonialism and colonial spoil. It is also clear that the EU shares Britain’s racist sympathies with, and affinities for the white commercial farmers and the commitment towards the protection of their minority privileges.

Outside the framework of the EU, however, Zimbabwe enjoys good bilateral relations with individual EU member states, and trade is booming with Germany, France, the Netherlands and others, roughly in that order. It is apparent, therefore, that there is a discernable variance between the diplomatic/political relations between Zimbabwe and the EU as a group, and the trade and investment relations between Zimbabwe and the individual EU members, at the State and private corporate level. It is also apparent that as of today, EU policies toward Zimbabwe are globally negative rather than positive, indicating very strongly that EU member states put greater weight on their loyalty toward their regional axis than they do on their bilateral ties when dealing with non-member states, particularly developing countries.

This thesis is corroborated by EU attitudes in dealing with other African countries as well. It should be recalled that when the Government of Eritrea declared the Italian Ambassador person non grata last year, for activities that were tantamount to interfering in Eritrea’s internal affairs, all the other EU Ambassadors abandoned their posts and left for their capitals, despite their countries’ sound bilateral relations with the host government. They only returned after relations between Eritrea and Italy had normalized.

 Zimbabwe’s hope lies in maintaining her principled stands on the land, democracy, social justice and national sovereignty while at the same time concretizing our relations with the EU in areas of trade and technology transfers. We remain fully conscious that British greed and racism will repeatedly rear their heads across all our efforts even in these areas.

 Whilst cultivating sound bilateral relations with individual EU member states, Zimbabwe can and should also seek to interest those European capitals to view and treat Britain’s predatory manoeuvres against our Government for what they are: attempts to squirm out of and internationalise a bilateral dispute with Zimbabwe due to her  unwillingness to honour her historical obligations with regard to compensation for land acquired for resettlement. When all is said and done, British greed and hypocrisy lie at the core of Zimbabwe’s political and economic problems today.

 What is equally of concern is that British greed has a racist spin to it, thus negating any claims Britain may falsely make for itself as fair-minded non-racial society.

 3.             Zimbabwe and the USA

 As a general view, it would be correct to say that the United States is both a positive and a negative force in international relations today. It is obvious that the United States is the largest and most powerful democracy in the world and as such, can play a positive international role in making democracy the centerpiece for both international and national governance, worldwide. It has long and tested democratic institutions and traditions. As the strongest nation in the world, the United States could, if it wished, help emerging democracies to grow and prosper. There is no doubt that democracy holds the greatest promise for all marginalized communities who form the majority of the world population today.

 It is a matter of the greatest disappointment and concern that the United States has not used its long and tested democratic experience, institutions and traditions to support the emergence and growth of genuine democracy in Zimbabwe. To the contrary, the United States has chosen to use its immense wealth and technology to thwart and derail democratic growth and development in Zimbabwe. Instead of allowing the people of Zimbabwe to exercise their free will, the USA has opted to apply economic and diplomatic power and pressure to influence the course of political events in Zimbabwe.

There are conducive legal, social and political conditions for the growth and prosperity of American investments in Zimbabwe, which reduce to pettiness the US Administration’s reasons for isolating and punishing Zimbabwe.

The US Administration unilaterally decided to exclude Zimbabwe from the trade programme under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), whilst dangling that project as a leverage to compromise Zimbabwe’s efforts to embed democracy, social justice and sense of independence. The US Administration allowed some disgruntled Zimbabweans to manage the serving of summons on His Excellency President Mugabe during the UN Millennium Summit in New York in September 1999 in order to harass Zimbabwe’s leadership. Soon after, the US Congress introduced the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act in December 2001 and blocked opportunities for economic cooperation between Zimbabwe and America, as well as American-controlled financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF. The USA has also imposed EU-initiated punitive measures against Zimbabwe, including the so-called “smart sanctions” on the Zimbabwean leadership. As Zimbabwe has no differences, nor quarrel with the US, and as there is no known bilateral difference between us, one is urged to conclude that the US Administration is punishing us on behalf of the UK Administration on purely racial grounds.  

Just how are the interests of the USA served by her interference with the growth of true democracy in Zimbabwe? In spite of the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of its society, the USA is fundamentally an Anglo-Saxon state. For this reason, the USA shares Britain’s blame for her paternalistic, neocolonialist and racist posture on Zimbabwe.

The challenge for the Zimbabwean diplomat is to continue to prod the American conscience by talking to various communities and sectors of the American society. This battle for the American conscience has to be taken to every American and every nationality comprising the American polity. Some of them simply do not know our situation and out story. Furthermore, it is crucial to create concrete business linkages that not only transcend the political divide, but also ensure that a significant part of American business interests stand threatened by the Administration’s maintenance of flawed and baseless bilateral relations with Zimbabwe.

4.             Zimbabwe and SADC

In its dealings with the sub-region, Zimbabwe is guided completely by SADC conventions and protocols. SADC’s full strength derives from its organic unity. Therefore, Zimbabwe’s future is tied with the future of SADC and we will do everything we can to sustain and uphold SADC protocols and principles.  

Zimbabwe today is also at the forefront of pushing for the fashioning of African means for pursuing African objectives even at the sub-regional level. This policy has achieved success within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) where the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security has been established.

At a meeting held in Cape Town, South Africa, in 1995, SADC adopted a resolution to take collective action in the case of any attempt by domestic, or external forces to remove a legitimate government by unconstitutional means. Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia’s military involvement in the DRC constitutes implementation of this resolution.

For fear of being discovered and identified as an unrepentant colonial power, Britain, through the EU, has been wooing African countries, particularly SADC member states, to isolate Zimbabwe in what might then appear to be an international disenchantment with Zimbabwe. Britain’s unending ploys must continue to be unmasked at every appearance. Besides, it is imperative for Zimbabwe to work hard to consolidate SADC solidarity on the platform of collective survival. At its time of greatest challenge, Zimbabwe stands to benefit from solidarity with the rest of the region in the political, security, cultural and economic fields.

5.             Zimbabwe and the OAU/AU

The OAU or the AU, as it is soon to become, comprises the bulk of former colonies of European countries, such as Britain, Portugal, France, Spain, Belgium, and Germany. In spite of the commonality of colour and world outlook, the differences in the cultures of the countries that colonized individual African countries is imbedded in  the differences that too usually surface among the former colonies, each exuding the nature and character of the former colonizing power. Language differences among the Anglophone, Lusophone and Francophone countries have often acted as barriers to communication. Thanks to Africa’s founding fathers, pan-Africanism, transcending to all inhabitants and indigenous peoples of Africa as one family with one destiny, is serving as the continental vision and uniting force among all the OAU/AU member states.

In all her domestic policies, as well as bilateral and international African relations, Zimbabwe has remained faithful to the principles embodied in the OAU/AU Charter and protocols. It was out of this discipline that Zimbabwe deployed troops to Mozambique to help fight off the apartheid-sponsored onslaught upon the Mozambican Government. Zimbabwe, together with Angola and Namibia, is currently deployed in the DRC as part of a SADC allied force that is helping the legitimate government of the DRC, at the latter’s request, to fend off armed invasions by Rwanda and Uganda. Further afield, Zimbabwe has willingly integrated her troops and civilian police in UN peacekeeping missions to Angola, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Eritrea and other countries.

Closer home, Zimbabwe has consistently worked towards the molding of strong sub-regional frameworks in the SADC and COMESA in order to facilitate the evolution of a powerful building bloc which, together with other sub-regional bodies such as the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS), will give rise to a continental economic bloc.

Zimbabwe has maintained its pan-Africanist policies and has continued to play a crucial role in the establishment of OAU institutions. We have added out voice to others who promote the OAU’s that are pan-Africanist goals. Africa’s problems cannot be solved by the adoption of strategies that result in the prosperity of only a spattering of African states. Economic recovery programmes for Africa must encompass all of Africa, including and in particular the marginalized communities. In the same view, Zimbabwe’s problem can be best understood and even solved if we raise consciousness about our unique condition as an African State; and especially the historic fact that it is Europe that impoverished Africa, not only through the extortion of our rich natural resources, but also through the suppression of our sense of worth and dignity.

Modern reality, however, is that Africa needs Europe to the extent that Europe needs Africa. To effect this symbiosis, Europe should respect Africa, even with all they know about our past and about our present. This should include mutual respect for our respective sovereign obligations and constituencies. Anything less exposes a world without vision.

6.             Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth

Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth share common values and traditions, which are embodied in the Millbrook and Harare Declarations, among other protocols. These are the very values that Zimbabwe uses as a guide in the pursuit of its domestic and international interests. Where Zimbabwe falls short is where some powerful members of the Commonwealth are prepared to pervert the meaning of democracy: where they are prepared to see a democrat in a dictator; democracy in dictatorship; failure in success; enemies in friends; and where democracy is democracy only where it serves their paternalistic, neo-colonialist and white racist interests. It is not in the ideal, but in the distortions and the hypocrisies that Zimbabwe comes into conflict with the Anglo-Saxons in the Commonwealth.

We must bemoan these tragic incidents where one powerful member, in pursuit of its own narrow national agenda, puts undue pressure upon other members of the Commonwealth to make perverted decisions that are contrary not only to their values and positions, but also to their own best judgment. Such was the nature of the findings of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) and the Commonwealth Observer Group on the general political situation and the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe’s challenge is to ensure that we are found on the side and in solidarity and commonality of purpose with those members of the Commonwealth who are opposed to Britain’s aggression and quest for Anglo-Saxon control over the goings-on, not only of the Commonwealth, but also of the rest of the membership of that organization.

7.             Zimbabwe and Asia/Latin America/the Caribbean

Zimbabwe, like other African countries, shares the same priorities with the majority of Asian, Latin American and Caribbean countries, which not only emerged from backgrounds of colonial oppression, but are also facing the same problems with all other developing countries. Since we share the same values, and are involved in the same struggle against Western paternalism, neo-colonialism and racism, Zimbabwe cherishes her growing relations with other countries in the South.

It is a large and threatening world out there, and our self-help, in those circumstances, should translate into an ability and a willingness to form coalitions and solidarity groupings with other like-minded and similarly situated states in the Community of Nations with a view to bringing about critical weight to bear at a particular point in order to tilt the argument and events in our favour.

Therefore, Zimbabwe cherishes the emerging trade relations with countries in the South. Our diplomatic challenge is to remain steadfast in our support for those policies and ideals which make us not only honest members but also diligent brokers in the global village in our search for world peace, the eradication of poverty and the integration of the poor and marginalized countries and communities in the mainstream of global economy.

 8.             Zimbabwe and the ACP/NAM/G77

 Operating at the global level, Zimbabwe has championed solidarity among developing countries through our participation in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Group of 77 (G77) as well as the Group of 15 (G15). We have advocated South-South co-operation and yet also worked with developed countries in other forums in search of a real and mutually beneficial North-South cooperation.

 Some of these groupings, like the Group of 15, are direct self-help groups. Others, like the NAM and the G77 are coalitions that help secure solidarity among developing countries as they operate in global fora such as at the UN. These groupings are also useful in guiding the behaviour of their member states besides being useful coalitions for articulating common policy in those larger fora.

 The similarity of our circumstances means that we have a lot to learn from each other’s experience. A good example we have here is the Langkawi International Dialogue on Smart Partnership, a forum at which some developing countries, including Zimbabwe, exchange and share experiences as well as create conducive conditions for the private sectors from the involved countries to interact. Only in this way can we organize to withstand and resist the selfish paternalist, neo-colonialist and racial onslaught of the North.

 9.             Zimbabwe and the UN

 Not satisfied with the impact of current US, EU and Commonwealth measures against Zimbabwe, and in a bid to further internationalise her bilateral dispute with Zimbabwe, Britain, with the help of the EU, attempted to place Zimbabwe under UN scrutiny at the recent session of the UN Human Rights Commission. Fortunately, and thanks to Africa’s leadership, an EU draft resolution that sought to mandate the UN Human Rights Commission to dispatch a human rights Rapporteur to Zimbabwe and keep the country under scrutiny was defeated, much to the chagrin of Britain and the EU. It is clear, therefore, that Zimbabwe’s solidarity with like-minded countries indeed constitutes the best means for the common survival of developing countries. 

 Zimbabwe has been working hard with other states on the reform of the United Nations. With regards to Security Council reform, we have demanded that Africa should get two permanent seats that shall be filled on a rotating basis by African countries. Furthermore, we have shown our commitment to the UN not only through our contributions to its budget, but also by our contributions to its peacekeeping activities in various roles. The regularity of our payments towards the UN’s up-keep and our participation in peacekeeping operations lend weight to our voice as we discuss UN reform. A credible, well-functioning and representative UN contributes to global peace, including our own. Our officers and men and women, who have served in UN peacekeeping missions abroad, have acquitted themselves as able ambassadors for their country and have done us all proud.

10.            CONCLUSION

As a small state, Zimbabwe has been forced to pay a heavy price for daring to stand by international principles against powerful Western interests that wish to see their relations with this country and Africa as a whole conducted on the basis of antiquated colonial dictates that have been internationally discredited. There has been massive mobilisation of the international community, international institutions and major economies around the world to pressurize and isolate Zimbabwe. The international media and the information super-highway are awash with hostile propaganda to that effect. Furthermore, every effort has been made to pervert and undermine the shared values upon which Zimbabwe, its neighbours in the SADC region, the African continent and the developing world at large are determined to progressively consolidate and strengthen cooperation among themselves, as well as between their bloc and the developed countries.

For Zimbabwe, all this is an indication of very serious contradictions in the international community’s purported quest for mutually beneficial relations and partnerships among the world’s nations within the context of globalisation. For while we in Africa and the developing world strive to strengthen our relations within the context of international expectations on globalisation, powerful forces waged against us are at work busy negating our efforts.

Zimbabwe therefore views its problematic relations with the big and powerful Western countries as part of the African continent’s continuing struggle for sovereignty, self-determination, democracy, and the economic empowerment of its people, based on African values and experiences in our quest for a just international order.

The dynamism of our relations with our neighbours in the SADC region and throughout the African continent will continue to inspire and inform the relations which Zimbabwe seeks to develop with the wider international community, guided by the principles enshrined in the Charters of the OAU/AU and the United Nations.

I thank you.