Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
02HARARE2689 | 2002-11-25 12:08:00 | 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 02 HARARE 002689 |
1. (c) Summary. The November 15 detention of a U.S. diplomat, a UN officer, and two Zimbabwean nationals (ref a) continues to reverberate. Following Ambassador's meeting with the MFA (ref b), GOZ official also met with UNDP Deputy Resident Representative after the latter submitted a note of protest parallel to the one submitted by us. The meeting, during which the UN threatened to scale back activities if security issues cannot be resolved, received equally slanted coverage in the GOZ press. The GOZ appears unwilling to take the necessary punitive action against the "war veterans" responsible for the detention and had instead embarked on a strategy of obfuscation and disinformaton that has further damaged its credibility and strained its relations with the diplomatic corps. The EU and some African colleagues have expressed displeasure with the GOZ's instruction that henceforth diplomats must notify the MFA before traveling outside of greater Harare. We see this as something of a side-show and remain convinced that forcing the GOZ to face up to its responsibilities is far more important, especially should this occur in broader United Nations Security Council (UNSC) discussions of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. End Summary. -------------------------- UN Faces Off Against the GOZ -------------------------- 2. (c) On November 21, in the wake of a meeting between the U.S. and GOZ diplomats, MFA Europe and Americas Director Joey Bihma also met with UNDP Deputy Resrep Bernard Mokam at Bihma's request. According to Mokam, the encounter was considerably tougher than our session. Bihma complained about the tone of the diplomatic note of protest that the UNDP submitted following the Melfort incident and blamed the visiting diplomats for provoking the incident. Mokam in turn warned that if the security issue is not resolved, the UN would have no choice but to heighten its security posture, limit travel of staff to the field, and as a result reduce or curtail some programs. He also warned that GOZ inaction on assuring the security of diplomats would have an adverse impact on overall donor support for Zimbabwe. Following the encounter, Mokam expressed particular displeasure with GOZ press coverage of the meeting, specifically the Herald's allegation that Mokam had admitted that the UN had failed to inform the GOZ, as required by (non-existent) MFA circular note D61, prior to the visit in Melfort. The UN sent a follow-up diplomatic note objecting to the statements attributed to GOZ officials in the Herald report and providing a detailed summary of the meeting, for the record. -------------------------- Covering Their Tracks, Poorly -------------------------- 3. (c) The GOZ approach to the Melfort incident is clearly one of misdirection. Instead of disavowing the actions of the war vets involved, and taking punitive action against them, the GOZ has attempted to shift the blame. In doing so, GOZ officials have resorted not so much to disinformation as outright lies, and increasingly damaged what little credibility they have left. On November 22, most members of the diplomatic community received MFA circular (secular, according to the GOZ press) note D61. The note claims to be a reminder of an earlier note that required all diplomats to notify (as opposed to request permission) 48-hours before traveling more than 40 kilometers beyond greater Harare. This "reminder" presumably refers to the June 22 circular (secular) note cited in GOZ press coverage of our meeting, a note that in fact was never sent. No one in the diplomatic corps received such a note in June (although the British received a similar note in September). The note, which was clearly rushed out the door to support the alleged existence the earlier non-existent note, is sloppily written. If does not clarify exactly who must notify, nor whether this refers to official travel. Attempts by various diplomats to clarify these points with the MFA have engendered contradictory responses. 4. (c) Not surprisingly, the GOZ's clumsy approach has provoked a mixture of smiles and frowns from the donor community. A number of our colleagues have pointed out that Melfort lies within 40-kilometers of greater Harare, thus having obviated the then non-existent need to inform before visiting. Charges of the U.S./UN group throwing food out the window of their car and filming the ensuing food fight has also inspired considerable mirth. The EU and other diplomats, however, have expressed disbelief and ire at the GOZ's latest blundering. There is a move afoot to send the acting dean of the diplomatic corps, the Zambian High Commissioner, to protest the notification requirement and request clarification on exactly what it means. Later today, the far more serious issue of failing to take the necessary steps to protect diplomats risks becoming the central point of discussion in a meeting at UNDP between the donors and the GOZ. -------------------------- COMMENT: Next Steps -------------------------- 5. (c) While we think reciprocal restrictions on Zimbabwean diplomats in Washington and New York might be in order at the appropriate moment, we think it important first to define clearly just who is being restricted and how, particularly since U.S. diplomats have far more at stake than Zimbabwe's tiny diplomatic staff, and more importantly, to keep the focus on GOZ responsibility to ensure protection and diplomatic privileges rather than let the GOZ change the subject to a dispute over travel restrictions. Several of our diplomatic colleagues are also anxious to give our African colleagues an opportunity to convince the GOZ to abandon its position. We also note that the notification requirement does not constitute GOZ permission to travel, which we would strongly protest, and is little more than a paperwork exercise. The GOZ failure to protect diplomats involved in humanitarian actions is an altogether different and more serious matter. We continue to believe that the best approach to the Melfort incident, and similar problems, would be to package this within a UNSC special session on the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. In that context, the GOZ would find is very difficult to hide its failure to respect its responsibilities behind the usual veil of obfuscation and untruth SULLIVAN |