A group of religious leaders presented a 43- page document entitled “The Zimbabwe We want” to President Robert Mugabe on 27 October.
The document called for dialogue leading to national reconciliation and outlined specific steps to resolve Zimbabwe’s political, economic, and social problems.
Leaders of the Christian Alliance, an umbrella group of Christian groups opposed to Mugabe, attended the ceremony and supported the concept but branded the process “a joke” because it had allowed Mugabe too much control over the final wording.
Reports said Central Intelligence Organisation director Happyton Bonyongwe and Intelligence Minister Didymus Mutasa had been consulted on the document and had made substantial changes to it.
The Movement for Democratic Change felt that Mugabe was not sincere and just wanted to buy time.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 06HARARE1299, CHURCH LEADERS “NATIONAL VISION” REJECTED BY
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Released |
Classification |
Origin |
VZCZCXRO5258
PP RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHSB #1299/01 3041443
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 311443Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY HARARE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0747
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 1348
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 1200
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 1352
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0103
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0613
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0978
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 1406
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 3784
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1175
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 1827
RUEFDIA/DIA WASHDC//DHO-7//
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1569
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK//DOOC/ECMO/CC/DAO/DOB/DOI//
RUEPGBA/CDR USEUCOM INTEL VAIHINGEN GE//ECJ23-CH/ECJ5M//
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 001299
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR S. HILL
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR B. PITTMAN
USAID FOR M. COPSON AND E. LOKEN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/17/2011
SUBJECT: CHURCH LEADERS “NATIONAL VISION” REJECTED BY
OPPOSITION
REF: HARARE 00783
Classified By: Ambassador Christopher Dell under Section 1.4 b/d
¶1. (C) Summary. A group of religious leaders presented
President Mugabe October 27 with a so-called “national
vision” document they said is intended as a road map for
dialogue leading to a resolution of Zimbabwe,s problems.
While stating that the document could lead to consensus among
Zimbabweans on a way forward, Mugabe ruled out constitutional
reform, a primary tenet of the church leaders proposal.
Government-controlled media heralded the document, but it
received a chilly reception from the opposition. Leaders of
the Christian Alliance, an umbrella group of Christian groups
opposed to Mugabe attended the ceremony and supported the
concept but branded the process “a joke” that had allowed
Mugabe too much control over the final wording. For its
part, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) told us that
Mugabe,s embracing of the document while simultaneously
rejecting its call for constitutional change showed his lack
of sincerity and his intent to “buy time.” End Summary.
———————-
“The Zimbabwe we want”
———————-
¶2. (U) Church leaders from the Catholic Bishops Conference,
Zimbabe Council of Churches, and the Evangelical Fellowship
of Zimbabwe presented President Mugabe, at a public ceremony
on October 27, with a 43-page document, “The Zimbabwe We
Want*Towards a National Vision for Zimbabwe.” It assesses
the current situation in Zimbabwe, including the divisive
political atmosphere, contentious laws, the failed economic
framework, corruption, dysfunctional land redistribution, and
international isolation. The document calls for dialogue
leading to national reconciliation and outlines specific
steps to resolve Zimbabwe,s political, economic, and social
problems.
¶3. (U) Importantly, the document notes that Zimbabweans
accepted the Lancaster House Constitution as an interim
measure and that many Zimbabweans desire a new and “home
grown” constitution that enshrines human and national values
with constitutional protections. The document also
highlights the chaos of land redistribution, a resulting
culture of racial hatred, and the importance of a fair
resolution of the land issue, including compensation. and
specifically and the need for a “home grown” and fair
constitution.
——————-
Mugabe and his take
——————-
¶4. (C) The launch was the culmination of months of drafting
that began after Mugabe met with the church leaders last
spring. (Ref) The government-controlled media gave front-page
attention to the launch and has subsequently pulled out all
the stops in publicizing the report. It has portrayed the
document as an important step forward, and highlighted
Mugabe’s remarks. In his lengthy speech accepting the
document, Mugabe commended the initiative of the Church in
undertaking the initiative, referred to the document as a
“road map” to reconciliation, and stressed the need to set
aside political differences. However, with regard to the
constitution, Mugabe said he strongly disagreed with the need
for a new “home grown” constitution. Mugabe concluded that
HARARE 00001299 002 OF 003
the GOZ would entertain amendments to the existing
constitution but never accept the need for a new one.
(Comment: Mugabe’s rejection of constitutional reform needs
to be seen in the light of his support for a new constitution
in 2000. The difference, obviously, is that the 2000
constitution, rejected by voters, would have expanded his
powers and term. End Comment.)
¶5. (C) According to Embassy FSN’s who attended the event,
Mugabe’s remarks rambled and he occasionally lost his train
of thought. He elicited little applause in contrast to the
response to church leaders who also spoke. Physically,
Mugabe appeared to have lost weight and hair, and appeared
frail. In shaking hands with attendees after his speech, his
face showed little emotion. (Note: At a farewell for the
Austrian ambassador, captured by state television a couple of
days earlier, Mugabe also appeared extremely frail. End
Note.)
———————–
Split within the Church
———————–
¶6. (C) In extolling the document as a basis for national
dialogue, evangelical Bishop Trevor Manhanga, one of its
authors, told polchief that it had been written in
consultation with a cross-section of the political community.
Moreover, Manhanga portrayed himself and fellow church
leaders responsible for the document as representing the
views of the “mainstream” churches in Zimbabwe and dismissed
criticism from the Christian Alliance, an umbrella church
group that he said had “no constituency.”
¶7. (C) In contrast, Bishop L.T.C. Kadenge, a member of the
Christian Alliance, told polchief that his organization was
the true representative of the dispossessed not Mahanga and
his fellow authors, who had shown themselves to be supporters
of the regime. Kadenge said that by allowing Mugabe to
preview the document, the religious leaders had allowed
Mugabe to eviscerate the final draft, turning the process
into a “joke.” For example, Kadenge said an earlier draft
had called for a new constitution by 2007. This
recommendation is not contained in the final document.
Kadenge said that although representatives of the Christian
Alliance had attended the launch of the document, they would
now find it difficult to participate in a dialogue with the
GOZ given Mugabe’s position on a new constitution.
————
MDC reaction
————
¶8. (C) MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told polchief that
Manhanga had solicited MDC input but that the MDC had never
been consulted on the final document. While the MDC, which
did not attend the October 27 ceremony, will not take a
formal position until its executive committee meets this
weekend, Chamisa stated that the central issue of the
document is its call for consideration of a new constitution.
Chamisa said that by rejecting ab initio a new constitution,
Mugabe has demonstrated his “lack of sincerity.” Chamisa
added Mugabe is trying to manipulate church leaders,
neutralize the opposition and buy time.
——-
Comment
——-
HARARE 00001299 003 OF 003
¶9. (S/NF) According to sensitive reporting, Manhanga
presented an initial draft of the document to Mugabe and
consulted on the final draft with CIO Director General
Happyton Bonyongwe and Minister for State Security Didymus
Mutasa, who made substantial changes to it. No doubt Mugabe
saw an opportunity to create yet another diversion from
seriusly addressing the real issues, while also stavin off
pressure from the churches. The perceptionthat the clerics
were co-opted or tricked by Mugae and the regime is already
widespread, and if te details of the actual negotiations
emerge, bot the document and the church leaders will be
higly discredited in the eyes of all but Mugabe,s
lyalists. Indeed, the huge publicity given to the rport by
the state meda has already raised eyebrws and cast doubts
over the endeavor.
¶10. (C Manhanga is a regular embassy contact and a
wel-respected religious leader. By all accounts his
involvement in this initiative is well-intentioned However,
by closely allying themselves with Muabe in writing and
presenting the document Manhaga and his fellow church
leaders probably fatall compromised their initiative even
before Mugabes immediate rejection of the need for anew
constitution.
DELL
(844 VIEWS)
