President Robert Mugabe was not happy with the non-governmental organisations bill and wanted to send it back to Parliament but he could not do so because of the heavy criticism the bill had received from the United States government.
Central bank governor Gideon Gono told United States ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell that Mugabe felt that sending the bill back to Parliament after such strong criticism from the United States government would give the impression that he was bowing down to pressure and would thus compromise Zimbabwe’s sovereignty.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 04HARARE2046, GOZ REACTS STRONGLY TO US STATEMENT ON NGO BILL
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 |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
161349Z Dec 04
C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 002046
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR BNEULING
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE, D. TEITELBAUM
PARIS FOR C. NEARY
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2009
SUBJECT: GOZ REACTS STRONGLY TO US STATEMENT ON NGO BILL
REF: HARARE 2003
Classified By: Ambassador Christopher W. Dell under Section 1.4 b/d
¶1. (U) On December 14, the government-run Herald newspaper
prominently featured an op-ed piece, “US hypocrisy laid
bare,” attacking the USG for official statements on the NGO
bill recently passed in Parliament (reftel). The feature
asserted that the USG reaction was consistent with its &hard
and punishing stance on Zimbabwe.8 The article, which
accurately quoted from the Department’s statement last week
on the bill, equated the NGO bill with the Patriot Act.
¶2. (U) According to the Herald, USG criticism of the &same
piece of legislation8 as the Patriot Act was tantamount to
an admission that that it was working with NGOs to effect
regime change in Zimbabwe and that the USG’s real objection
was that the NGO bill would stop the funding channel to do
so. The USG was trying to incite a popular uprising in order
to be able to cite political violence when declaring the
March 2005 Parliamentary elections not free and fair. The
piece cited a litany of purported evidence of prior USG
support of regime change and closed with a local academic
urging that Zimbabwe “stop paying attention to what the
Americans say.”
¶3. (C) Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono on
December 14 told the Ambassador that President Mugabe was
unhappy that the US criticized the NGO bill so strongly.
Gono said Mugabe had been considering sending the bill back
to Parliament rather than signing it, a possibility Gono
credited to his own analysis of the economic impact of the
NGO bill, but that Mugabe felt that to do so after such
strong criticism would give the appearance of bowing to
pressure and compromising Zimbabwean sovereignty. The
Ambassador had responded that Mugabe could easily find a
face-saving measure, such as sending the bill back to
Parliament for &technical8 fixes and then letting it die on
the vine.
¶4. (C) COMMENT: The GOZ appears at the highest levels to be
paying close attention to our posture on Zimbabwe. So much
so, in fact, that the GOZ,s public reactions to our
criticisms ensure that a wide audience will note them. Odds
are if the GOZ kept quiet, far fewer Zimbabweans would have
been aware of our objections to the NGO bill. This
counter-productive prickliness in both public and private
underscores the extent to which the regime’s priority is on
firmly reestablishing Mugabe’s legitimacy and the GOZ,s
credibility on the international stage. The reaction to USG
critcism shows both the importance of this leverage and the
limits on its effectiveness. It is a tool that we can wield
to great effect but only by exercising restraint and using it
sparingly to ensure maximum impact.
DELL
(21 VIEWS)
