Civil society organisations which met in Harare soon after the announcement that the three major political parties in Zimbabwe had agreed on a memorandum of agreement setting the framework for negotiations, which had not yet been signed, called for a transitional government led by a neutral person and rejected a power-sharing arrangement.
They said this in a press statement that was released by National Constitutional assembly chairman Lovemore Madhuku who had convened the meeting.
However, representatives of other civic organisations said the statement did not fully represent the consensus of the dozens of civic organisations that had met.
They accused three leaders, Jenni Williams of WOZA, Takura Zhangazha of MISA, and Munyaradzi Gwisai of the International Socialist Organisation in Zimbabwe, of ‘hijacking’ the statement and changing the language to reflect their thoughts rather than those of the larger group.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 08HARARE636, CIVIL SOCIETY SKEPTICAL OF MOU AND TALKS
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 |
VZCZCXRO6153
OO RUEHDU RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHSB #0636/01 2071201
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 251201Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY HARARE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3218
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 2174
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 2293
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0825
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1570
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 1928
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 2349
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 4780
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUZEJAA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RHMFISS/EUCOM POLAD VAIHINGEN GE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1439
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 000636
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR S. HILL
ADDIS ABABA FOR USAU
ADDIS ABABA FOR ACSS
STATE PASS TO USAID FOR E. LOKEN AND L. DOBBINS
STATE PASS TO NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR B. PITTMAN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/25/2018
TAGS: ELAB PGOV PREL ASEC PHUM KDEM ZI
SUBJECT: CIVIL SOCIETY SKEPTICAL OF MOU AND TALKS
REF: A. A: HARARE 628
¶B. B: HARARE 625
¶C. C: HARARE 606
Classified By: Ambassador James McGee for reason 1.4(d).
——-
SUMMARY
——-
¶1. (C) While leaders of Zimbabwe’s vibrant civil society
welcome political dialogue, they are deeply skeptical about
the prospect of a future under a government of national unity
(GNU). In recent months, civil society has backed the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) very openly. However,
recent criticism of MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai’s
handshake with Robert Mugabe and the talks in South Africa
indicate its continued willingness to exercize independence.
A number of civil society organizations have called publicly
for a transitional government and a new election rather than
a GNU. In private, however, they concede that a transitional
goverment is an elusive dream that ZANU-PF may never accept.
Civil society’s criticism reflects fears that the MDC is
going to sell itself short and may be swallowed by ZANU-PF,
eliminating the only strong opposition party in Zimbabwe.
END SUMMARY.
——————————————— ——-
Civil society wants transitional government, not GNU
——————————————— ——-
¶2. (C) On July 15, civil society organizations met in Harare
to discuss their position on the current political situation.
In a press conference on July 16, Dr. Lovemore Madhuku,
chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), who
convened the meeting, called for a transitional government
led by a neutral person, and rejected a power-sharing
arrangement. His statement was endorsed by a number of
leading organizations including Women of Zimbabwe Arise
(WOZA), the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), the
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), and the Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR). Some civil society
representatives and journalists privately criticized the
press release as not fully representing the consensus of the
dozens of civil society organizations present.
Representatives told emboff that the majority of
organizations were not satisfied with the document, believing
it did not reflect civil society’s previous statements that
the will of the people was expressed on March 29 and that any
new government should reflect this will. They accused three
leaders, namely Jenni Williams of WOZA, Takura Zhangazha of
MISA, and Munyaradzi Gwisai of the International Socialist
Organization in Zimbabwe, of ‘hijacking’ the statement and
changing the language to reflect their thoughts rather than
those of the larger group.
¶3. (C) On July 16, WOZA leaders, including Jenni Williams,
conceded to poloff that while a transitional authority and a
fresh election would be best, it was also highly unlikely.
Everyone knews, they said, that Mugabe was not going to hand
over the reigns of power and that some kind of government of
national unity (GNU) was the most likely and — regrettably
— the best-case scenario. However, they were skeptical
about the MDC entering into any kind of agreement with
ZANU-PF, saying it could not be trusted and it had
historically swallowed up its opposition. Williams authored
an article in a Kenyan newspaper on July 23 criticizing
Zimbabwean political leadership’s self-importance and
ignorance of the people’s daily plight and the “crashing
economy”. She described her vision for a transitional
authority for 18 months, with a greater role for the UN in
addressing the humanitarian crisis, and called for an
HARARE 00000636 002 OF 003
immediate cessation to the violence, which has not stopped
since the June 27 election (reftel C).
—————————————–
Some, but not a lot of optimism for talks
—————————————–
¶4. (U) With the signing of the MOU on July 21 (reftels A
and B), civil society leaders have expressed varying degrees
of receptiveness to the development. In England, Harare
Anglican bishop Sebastian Bakare said that the launch of
talks offered “a little” hope, but he indicated it was too
early to say if the talks would lead to a real solution. He
echoed a familiar concern that the MDC would be swallowed up
by ZANU-PF, as had happened in Zimbabwe’s past.
¶5. (C) MISA Zimbabwe chairman Loughty Dube said on July 22
that he was “cautiously optimistic”. MISA Program Officer
Takura Zhangazha further explained to poloff on July 24 that
these talks were “inevitable”, but he criticized MDC and
ZANU-PF for not including civil society in drafting the MOU.
Specifically, Zhangazha said that ZANU-PF was specific in its
media concerns in adding “external radio stations” to the
agenda. Had MDC consulted with MISA, it would have advised
MDC to include the issues of the prohibition of foreign
journalists, heavily biased public broadcasting, and the
recently imposed taxes on foreign-printed papers. He further
explained that the secretive negotiation process for the MOU
was similar to the negotiation in 2007 that resulted in
Constitutional Amendment 18 that called for harmonized
elections. Zhangazha described a power-sharing arrangement
as a means for ZANU-PF to simply buy time, regain
international credibility, and eliminate sanctions. He
opined that while some elements of the MDC would be strong in
resisting being “swallowed” by ZANU-PF, others would not. He
thought that the Mutambara faction could play a critical role
in tipping the balance in either direction.
¶6. (C) ZCTU Secretary General Wellington Chibebe issued a
press statement “welcoming” the move towards a negotiated
settlement but the statement criticized the consultation
process as closed and called on the facilitators to open the
dialogue to include civil society. In a meeting with poloff
on July 22, Chibebe and ZCTU President Lovemore Matombo
expressed less enthusiasm for the talks. Matombo sighed
that, as labor leaders, they were in the business of
negotiations and you “never” get excited until a deal has
been reached, and certainly not over an agenda for talks.
They echoed Madhuku’s call for a neutral transitional
authority to lead the country, but they also conceded that
some kind of power-sharing agreement was the most likely
outcome. The labor leaders also criticized the negotiation
process as being too closed, saying that the political
leaders needed civil society’s acceptance and participation
to make the political agreement work. They repeated MISA’s
concerns that they had been consulted informally by elements
of the MDC, but in a haphazard manner rather than in a
strategic, systematic fashion.
¶7. (C) NCA president Dr. Lovemore Madhuku (who is also a
constitutional law expert) told poloff on July 25 that he was
“not very optimistic”. He opined that the talks will
collapse unless the MDC agrees to a GNU and that ZANU-PF
would never agree to a transitional government.
Consequently, the constitutional and legal reforms needed to
address the larger issues of poor governance and weak
institutions would remain unaddressed. As the economy
continues to decline, he thought that people could rise up if
the talks collapse and the situation on the ground further
deteriorates.
¶8. (U) Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which represents over
HARARE 00000636 003 OF 003
350 civic organizations, published a statement on July 22
calling for a solution that represents the will of the
people, as reflected in the March 29 election. Its statement
also pointed out the governance issues and erosion of
constitutionality and democracy over the last 10 years. The
Coalition called for a transitional authority rather than a
GNU, saying that a GNU was just a means to give ZANU-PF
“breathing space” before re-embarking on a war path against
the opposition and pro-democracy movements.
———————————–
Zimbabweans’ skepticism decreasing?
———————————–
¶9. (U) One of Zimbabwe’s most important civil society
websites, Kubatana!, requested input by SMS from Zimbabweans
regarding the talks. In April they asked about a possible
GNU and received overwhelmingly negative feedback. In
contrast, respondents now — likely softened by the violence
that wracked the countryside throughout May and June —
indicated that talks were a welcome development, but warned
Tsvangirai and MDC to be careful that they did not get
“swallowed” by ZANU-PF as happened to then-opposition party
ZAPU in 1987. In addition, they received over 300 requests
for a copy of the MOU, indicating the lack of information in
the public domain regarding even the public aspects of the
talks.
——-
COMMENT
——-
¶10. (SBU) Zimbabwe’s vibrant civil society is one of the few
remaining causes for optimism in Zimbabwe. These
organizations represent tens of thousands of ordinary
Zimbabweans and they continue to be outspoken about the
political future of their country. It is interesting that
while they publicly call for a transitional government, they
privately acknowledge it will likely never happen. Their
public adherence to a call for a transitional government may
further exclude them from the negotiations as their position
and that of the MDC diverge. END COMMENT.
MCGEE
(22 VIEWS)
0 Comments