Smoke, mirrors, spin: more on the Dell saga
The US Ambassador to Zimbabwe was rebuked by the Zimbabwean Government yesterday. The Horrid (state controlled The Herald) has covered it today.
Firstly, the article cites the Vienna Covention on Diplomatic Relations extensively to bolster the government’s right to summon the Ambassador, and to underscore the government’s view that Mr Dell’s behaviour was inappropriate. In particular:
Article 41 (1) Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
Surely this is only applicable if a law was broken? I can’t figure out how, by making a speech, Christopher Dell disrespected the law. At face value, the government would like the world to believe that we do have freedom of speech in Zimbabwe so they surely can’t be saying that by speaking freely Dell broke our laws? I mean, we all know that Zimbabwe is a land of glory where people can stand up and provoke open debate and voice opinions… can’t we…
Here’s the Horrid again, quoting Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi:
He deliberately chose to take the role of a local opposition political figure and, in the process, inciting the people of Zimbabwe against the Government, thereby portraying the Government as a villain, in flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention.
So the government line appears to be this: if you adopt a position that contradicts the stated position of the ruling government, then you are de facto a member of the opposition; criticising the government’s policies is tantemount to provoking a rebellion; provoking a rebellion entitles the government to come down hard and heavy. Twisted ‘thought police’ logic, and sadly all too familiar.
It baffles me really; there’s no perspective. Some Western countries are currently having a difficult time right now trying to strike a balance between freedom of speech and controlling public encitements to terrorist acts. I mean, we aren’t talking about bombs here, Mr Mumbengegwi, it was a speech about the economy and government policies. Just goes to show how much the truth threatens zanu.
And as for all the chat about the Vienna Convention..! You’re having me on, surely! Or perhaps Simbarashe Mumbengegwi is so puffed up with self-righteousness that he’s forgotten the time when the Zimbabwe Government violated article 36 of the Vienna Convention when Zimbabwean customs officials rummaged through British diplomatic baggage. Perhaps he has also forgotten the time when Willard Chiwewe, senior secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2001, made public statements indicating he was prepared to violate several articles in the Vienna Convention that sought to protect both the the premises and people in Foreign Embassies. He said (from The Telegraph, UK) that diplomats would “continue to receive the full protection of the law as well as assistance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”, going on to say,
“However, those diplomats who, for whatever reason or background, seek to further the interests of one political party against another, or to act as an agent of one political party against another, may not hope to receive assistance.”
I really think zanu needs to get their own house in order before they start indignant shrieking. Regardless of what they think, it’s not one Convention for the world and another for Zimbabwe.
Returning to The Horrid, the article continues with the real meat of the matter, as blogged here previously: by challenging the zanu position that Zimbabwe is economically crippled by widespread sanctions, Mr Dell left the zanu government directly responsible and answerable for the dire state of our economy, and for all the hardship and misery we all have to endure. This prompted Simbarashe Mumbengegwi to say:
“I expressed Government concern, particularly over the manner in which the ambassador seems to have selective recollection to what is contained in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.”
And:
“The ambassador conveniently forgets that the Act imposes sanctions that are illegal on Zimbabwe; and he conveniently forgets that the Act passed by his country bars banks and other financial institutions from extending any financial loans or budgetary assistance to Zimbabwe” [my emphasis]
What Mr Dell actually said about the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act in his speech was this:
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 is the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe. Under the Act, the United States conditions aid and financing for Zimbabwe on the government’s restoration of the rule of law, the conduct of free and fair elections, placing military and police forces under effective civilian control, and a commitment by the government to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program.
He also mentions US sanctions in his speech:
The travel and financial sanctions that we have imposed target the highest-level individuals in Zimbabwe. They restrict entry into the United States for senior members of the government, and others who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions.
To be fair to both sides, we really should look at the the relevant section in the Act itself which, as Mr Dell said, does appear to be primarily concerned with reducing or cancelling exisiting debt incurred by the Zimbabwean government, or extending more money to the Zimbabwean government. Specifically, Section 4 says this:
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to review, and expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary should instruct U.S. executive directors to multilateral development banks and international financial institutions to propose review of, the cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by, or the extension of loans, credit, or guarantees to, the Government of Zimbabwe upon the President’s certification to the appropriate congressional committees that: (1) the rule of law has been restored in Zimbabwe; (2) certain election or pre-election conditions have been met; (3) the Government of Zimbabwe has demonstrated a commitment to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program that is consistent with agreements reached at the International Donors’ Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe held in Harare, Zimbabwe, in September 1998; (4) such Government is making a good faith effort to fulfill the terms of the Lusaka, Zambia, agreement in ending the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and (5) the Zimbabwean Armed Forces, the National Police of Zimbabwe, and other state security forces have become subordinate to the elected civilian Government. Directs the Secretary to instruct such U.S. executive directors to oppose such assistance to Zimbabwe until such certification is made. Authorizes the President to waive such requirements if it is in the national interest of the United States.
Is this a sanction, as Simbarashe Mumbengegwi suggests? Or is it about conditions attached to aid and financing, as described by Mr Dell?
I’m trying to be very fair here, and I still end up seing it Mr Dell’s way. I really don’t understand why any government should expect other countries to either reduce their debt or give them more money if they show no inclination to do the necessary things to set their country’s financial situation in order. Where does that attitude of automatic entitlement come from?
There is certain to be more on this topic. The Times (UK) reports that Christopher Dell has been recalled to Washington:
The American Ambassador to Zimbabwe returned to Washington for “consultations†yesterday after President Mugabe’s Government threatened to expel him.
Diplomatic sources said that the high-level consultations “may be followed by important changes†in US relations with Zimbabwe.
