Bob @ 92 Series: ‘Europe can learn from President Mugabe’

14 Feb, 2016 - 00:02 0 Views
Bob @ 92 Series: ‘Europe can learn from President Mugabe’

The Sunday Mail

We had interesting dialogue with the Foreign Affairs Ministry as we shared our positions on world affairs.

In particular, we discussed COP21 – the Climate Change Summit in Paris held in December 2015 – and the constructive (role) played by the African Union in reaching a compromise, and Zimbabwe’s important role as AU Chair.

Most African countries had joined the “ambitious group” that wanted an ambitious agreement in Paris.

The EU was the first proponent of such an ambitious deal. We felt the AU had been very supportive. There is a meeting with the authorities to see how we will help Zimbabwe implement conclusions of COP21.

Then on the AU Chairmanship in general, we also had instructive discussions on Agenda 2063. What was interesting, and it’s not just me saying that, was how, under Zimbabwe’s Chairmanship, the AU very firmly reconfirmed its ambition of becoming less dependent on external funding. Thirty-five percent of AU funding comes from external partners, and the EU is one of the major funding partners for both operational and peace building expenditure. (Less dependence on external funding) is welcome as it is critically important for African integration.

There is more ownership of the process and this ownership can only be reflected through increased contributions by member states. It was also interesting that Zimbabwe managed to turn Summit procedures around.

Previously, Heads of State arrived at the end of Summit to validate whatever would have been discussed and decided at technical level.  That meant there was little political ownership of what was decided, subsequently leading to implementation gaps.  But now, under Zimbabwe’s leadership, the political ground for technical decisions was prepared in advance by the Heads of State. So, first there was broad-built consensus among Heads of State of what had to be agreed upon.

That, in terms of process, is very important. I’m speaking from our own EU experience as well. We have the same problems in the EU as well.

The European Commission initiates legislative work, and the decisions are taken up by the Council of Ministers and European Council of Heads of State at a later stage. But we have discovered over recent years that this becomes increasingly difficult. So, it’s better to try to involve the member states at an early stage so that you bind them in. In the end, the decision-making process becomes easier and implementation will run smoothly.

Sanctions

Yearly, the Council assesses the situation on the basis of the criteria that led to the restrictive and appropriate measures being instituted. The appropriate measures were lifted at the end of 2014, allowing us to re-engage and normalise cooperation.

We are left with restrictive measures linked to what we at least considered violation of essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement. Article 9 of this Agreement identifies essential elements of partnership: democracy, rule of law and human rights.

So, progress on the restrictive measures is linked to progress on these key elements. We expect progress in these areas.

Now we have this annual review process that comes up at the end of February.

The timing does not always fit into the Government agenda, so the reform agenda is not necessarily aligned with our decision-making processes.

That is why there is an apparent disconnect at times. The decisions of the EU are consensual among member states, so everybody contributes from their respective angle. You always have, depending on the topics, more influential countries taking greater interest in the subject.

But in this case, Council decisions have a certain time horizon that is renewed annually. It will lapse if there is no explicit decision for renewing that decision.

So, that means if there is no consensus and some countries refuse to renew, then the decision lapses.

The Germans are bigger and there are other big countries. It is not the (level of) funding (that influences council decisions). Each country has veto power, and whether they use that veto power or not is their individual decision.

President Mugabe and First Lady (Amai Grace Mugabe) plus Zimbabwe Defence Industries are on the (sanctions) list.

Eighty-something individuals and enterprises were on the suspended list, so the restrictive measures no longer apply to them. Each year, when a decision is taken, we explain why that decision was taken, including decisions of the preceding year. The bottom line is Council still (feels) that not enough progress has been made on a couple of issues. This doesn’t mean we can’t be friends of Zimbabwe as some may suggest that being friends with Zimbabwe is a criminal case.

We think we have made a lot of progress in rebuilding mutual confidence, and it’s always important that we develop a mutually respectful narrative.

If you want to build trust you have to respect each other.

When I had the honour of presenting my credentials to the President, that’s exactly what we discussed.

We may agree to disagree on the origin of these measures that were taken in the past. We may disagree on the assessment of mutual responsibility for these things.

But let’s agree on something; building a basis for normalising our relations. That is the ultimate objective. We all have constraints. We have to try and understand each other, respect each other’s positions so that the rhetoric doesn’t spoil what we try to achieve. I’m not mandated to comment on the relations between Zimbabwe and the United States, but I think it is very unfortunate that there is a kind of over-reaction by some on the position taken by one person in the US, taking it up to a point of polemic counter productiveness.

I mean, we all have interests in building up constructive relations that help us move forward. I’m pleading for that.

I have to appreciate that the quality of dialogue has improved, and the improvement has been expressed in public communication. Bashing a partner is not the best way of engaging that partner.

I liked what Minister Chimanasa said during one breakfast meeting in September 2015, in the run up to Lima.

He said let’s go beyond the sanctions and engage with those who impose sanctions to find out how we can accelerate a way to lift those sanctions.

It’s not confronting those who impose sanctions that will accelerate their removal.

EU Head of Delegation in Zimbabwe Ambassador Philippe Van Damme shared these views with The Sunday Mail Senior Reporter Lincoln Towindo in Harare on February 10, 2016.

 

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds