Some “Wikileaks” meetings were even held at ZANU-PF HQ

The Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front deputy director for external affairs Itai Mach held a meeting with a political officer from the United States embassy in Harare at the party headquarters on 5 November 2003, according a cable released by Wikileaks.

The officer Win Dayton was even surprised that Mach met him alone which led Dayton to speculate that Mach was probably “carrying the water of his boss, the party’s mercurial Secretary for External Relations Didymus Mutasa.”

Mach briefed the political officer on the forthcoming party annual conference and said that the main subject was likely to be land as the party wanted to conclude that chapter.

He also asked whether the United States could waiver sanctions on some of the ZANU-PF leaders as a confidence building measure.

 

Full cable:

 

Viewing cable 03HARARE2236, VISIT TO ROTTEN ROW

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
03HARARE2236	2003-11-12 15:06	2011-08-30 01:44	CONFIDENTIAL	Embassy Harare

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 002236

 

SIPDIS

 

AF/S FOR S. DELISI, M. RAYNOR

NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR J. FRAZER, TEITELBAUM

LONDON FOR C. GURNEY

PARIS FOR C. NEARY

NAIROBI FOR T. PFLAUMER

 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/08/2008

TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM ECON EAID EAGR ZI ZANU PF

SUBJECT: VISIT TO ROTTEN ROW

 

Classified By: Political Officer Win Dayton under Section 1.5 (b)(d)

 

¶1. (C) SUMMARY: ZANU-PF Deputy Director for External

Relations Itai Mach on November 5 told poloff that the

party’s national conference next month would likely focus

more on economic and land reform issues than

personnel/leadership matters. He suggested that informal and

personal communications across party lines were fairly

regular and increasingly cordial, but that the rank and file

in both parties were lukewarm on formal talks. He emphasized

that the ruling party still attached the highest priority to

land reform and was committed to rectify errors made in its

implementation. Mach indicated that Zimbabwe was “looking

eastward” to hedge against its ossifying relationship with

the West, even as it welcomed a role by the USG and others in

stemming its economic crisis. He inquired hypothetically

about the prospects of a waiver of travel restrictions for

senior party officials to travel to Washington for dialogue.

END SUMMARY.

 

December National Party Conference: Don’t Expect Much

——————————————— ——–

 

¶2. (C) During a meeting with poloff on November 5 at the

ruling party’s Rotten Row headquarters, Mach said that the

party had yet to circulate a formal agenda for its annual

national conference scheduled to be held in Masvingo December

4-6. He explained that national conferences generally were

regarded as interim meetings between Party Congresses, the

next of which was slated for 2005. Generally, national

conferences did not undertake significant shifts in approach

but could make new policies, subject to ratification at the

Party Congress. Notwithstanding considerable public

speculation about the conference’s implications for

leadership changes, Mach asserted it would revolve more

around economic and land issues rather than personnel

matters. Elaboration of the Utete Commission Report on Land

Reform and its recommendations were likely to be spotlighted.

The leadership would brief the membership on land reform’s

progress and plans for rectifying errors in its

implementation. There would be some opportunity for feedback

but the format was principally to be top-down.

 

Land Reform: Central Priority,

Work in Progress, Need for Outside Help

—————————————

 

¶3. (C) Mach stressed the continuing centrality of land

reform to the party’s political platform. The issue remained

an emotional one for Zimbabweans, especially among the rural

majority. He said the party recognized that there were flaws

in the implementation of “fast-track” reform and was sincere

in its desire to straighten out errors and assure fairness.

Assuring the principle of one person-one farm admittedly was

proving a challenge despite the system’s explicit

requirements. In the meantime, the shifting of farms as the

principle was implemented was disrupting productivity. (He

himself was given a small farm at the outset of land reform,

but was having to surrender it as a larger, potentially more

profitable one had become available.) Complicating the

situation was the frequent emergence of multiple claimants to

single parcels. There were processes in place to regularize

these problems but “mischievous” claimants sometimes ignored

the processes, requiring police to sort matters out on

occasion. Given the numerous claimants and large acreage

involved nationally and the “complications of colonial

legacy”, some disruptions were inevitable, Mach concluded,

but the government was devoting considerable attention and

resources to minimize them.

 

¶4. (C) Mach asserted that the agricultural sector needed

help from the international community. Produce was rotting

in the fields as the “new farmers” lacked essential equipment

and technology. He conceded that “fast-track” land reform

had alienated much needed foreign direct investment and the

international donor community. USG and EU sanctions on

travel and investment contributed to Zimbabwe’s

stigmatization as an investment destination. Mach urged the

USG to accept the necessity of land reform in Zimbabwean

politics; to keep the politics of rhetorical scapegoating by

both parties in perspective; and to begin engaging

constructively on Zimbabwe’s economic reconstruction. Only

if people were empowered economically could they truly become

independent actors politically.

 

Inter-Party Relations: U.S. Can Help

————————————

 

¶5. (C) Mach lamented that his party did not do a better job

of selling itself to the international community. He said

that MDC members were guilty of many crimes of which they

accused ZANU-PF but they had much better rapport with the

international media and diplomatic community. The MDC’s

reliance on the media and international community to advance

its agenda alienated many Zimbabweans and hardened ZANU-PF’s

view that it represented foreign interests more than national

interests. He explained that ZANU-PF’s culture was such that

the party would not complain internationally about MDC

misbehavior; to do so would appear weak and shift

responsibility away from itself as the country’s ruling

party. Instead, it preferred to address such problems

through the courts or negotiation; interparty violence was

“unavoidable at times” but not the favored route and not

always instigated by ZANU-PF in any event. MDC elements had

utilized violence and intimidation since the party’s

founding, he asserted, and some of his own friends had lost

their lives to MDC violence.

 

¶6. (C) Mach asserted that the rank and file of neither party

strongly supported an inter-party dialogue on transition or

power-sharing. He recognized that there could be some mutual

benefit to dialogue but confidence-building was first

necessary. From ZANU-PF’s perspective, the MDC needed to

work more for Zimbabwe and less for foreign interests. It

should be more willing to engage on issues constructively as

an opposition party, and not hold every issue hostage to a

single-minded pursuit of change in government. He urged the

USG to facilitate inter-party confidence-building by getting

the MDC to take a more constructive and flexible posture.

Echoing other party officials, Mach suggested that

elimination of the USG’s targeted “smart sanctions” would go

far in engendering good will within the party.

 

ZANU-PF Views of the U.S.: Suspicion and Admiration

——————————————— ——

 

¶7. (C) Mach recognized the constructive role historically

played by the United States in Zimbabwe and asserted that a

potentially important role remained open, notwithstanding the

animus now driving bilateral relations. He said ZANU-PF’s

leadership remembered the contributions made by the USG in

breaking the impasse at Lancaster House in the run-up to

independence and many were not as anti-American as official

rhetoric would suggest. He said even the party’s rank and

file all admired aspects of the United States and wanted to

travel there. Zimbabweans were envious of the American

political system, in which winners and losers went about

their business and respected each other even after bitterly

fought elections. Neither ZANU-PF nor the MDC were there

yet, he asserted. Aside from certain areas — posture toward

land reform and sexual orientation, he noted — Americans and

Zimbabweans shared key ideals, even if neither was able

always to meet them.

 

¶8. (C) Nonetheless, comments about regime change and other

rhetoric from Washington deepened suspicion about the USG

within the party and were pushing the GOZ to a “look

eastward” foreign policy, according to Mach. “Eastern”

countries were eager to build economic relations with

Zimbabwe but did not attach distasteful political conditions

to cooperation as did the West. Mach observed that the

United States had superior technology and know-how that

Zimbabwe needed, though, and the GOZ remained open to a

stronger relationship with the USG — but only on “mutually

beneficial” terms not dictated by the stronger party. USG

travel restrictions against party and government principals

remained an impediment to better relations, both because of

the negative message they sent and because they prevented the

leadership from making its case in Washington. Echoing party

colleagues, Mach urged a lifting of the restrictions as a

confidence-building measure.

 

“Hypothetical” Inquiry on Travel by Party Principals

——————————————— ——-

 

¶9. (C) Mach asked about possible flexibility in the USG’s

travel sanctions, indicating that some in the party might

want to go to Washington for dialogue with the USG or with

international financial institutions. He emphasized that he

was not asking officially but wanted to understand the

process and legal limitations in the event that somebody may

wish to make a formal request in the future.

 

Comment

——-

 

¶10. (C) Unlike most party apparatchiks, Mach was willing to

meet alone with poloff. Like those few party faithful who

are willing to meet emboffs alone, Mach followed a formula of

didactically recounting the centrality of land reform to

Zimbabwean politics before shifting to a more engaging albeit

sometimes disingenuous posture. We assume that he was

carrying the water of his boss, the party’s mercurial

Secretary for External Relations Didymus Mutasa, in inquiring

 

SIPDIS

about waivers of travel restrictions. The inquiry may have

reflected Mutasa’s interest in opportunities for

self-aggrandizement (he reportedly is posturing for the

vacant vice-presidential slot) more than any calculated party

effort to get principals to travel to Washington. In any

event, we do not see the internally absorbed ZANU-PF as

willing to engage meaningfully in dialogue with the MDC or

USG yet, even if some party elements favor interparty talks

and/or rapprochement with the West. We have yet to see

evidence that the government’s much ballyhooed “look

eastward” policy is finding economically significant purchase

with potential partners, although the GOZ makes domestic

political hay out of supportive rhetoric from countries like

Malaysia.

 

Bio notes

———

 

¶11. (SBU) Married with two children, Mach is from a rural

township in Mashonaland Central — ZANU-PF heartland. He

said he was lucky to have an excellent A-level teacher whose

efforts earned him a spot in the University, where he joined

ZANU-PF. A party stalwart intimately familiar with and

constrained by the party line, Mach nonetheless displayed

candor in distinguishing between “politics” and “reality”

during conversation and in placing the well-known histrionics

of his mentor, Mutasa, into context.

SULLIVAN

(88 VIEWS)