MUGABE LAUNCHES RHETORICAL DEFENSE AGAINST VISIT

C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 001362 SIPDIS OPSCENTER PASS TO POTUS PARTY DAKAR AND PRETORIA FOR A/S KANSTEINER E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/07/2008 TAGS: PREL PGOV ZI SUBJECT: MUGABE LAUNCHES RHETORICAL DEFENSE AGAINST VISIT OF PRESIDENT BUSH: US COUNTER-POINTS REF: A. (A) FBIS RESTON AFP20030707000114 ¶B. (B) FBIS RESTON FBIS RESTON 20030704000061 Classified By: JOSEPH G. SULLIVAN FOR REASONS 1.5B/D 1.(u) The GOZ and President Mugabe have sought to send out several messages in advance of President Bush's visit to Africa and anticipated pressure on the Mugabe regime. The state media, led by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, has dished out a steady stream of vitriol replete with broad-gauge attacks on the US, racial slurs, criticism of the US operation in Iraq, claims that the US was seeking African resources or to prevent land redistribution to indigenous Zimbabweans and arguments based on national sovereignty. Mugabe sought to downplay the importance and risks for the GOZ of President Bush's visit by telling a ZANU-PF Central Committee meeting last Thursday that the USG would never attempt what it had in Iraq (ref b). But by Sunday, Mugabe told a mystified rural crowd that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had lied on Iraq, were "liars" and "criminals" and must stand before the International Court of Justice(ref a). He went on to say that President Bush was not welcome in Africa if he sought to interfere in internal African affairs, that South Africa would tell him that, and that Mugabe supported those in South Africa who were protesting President Bush's visit. While this story was featured on Sunday state television news, it had disappeared from Monday's state radio and newspaper coverage, as if someone had second thoughts about publicizing Mugabe's harsh language. 2.(c) The GOZ lines of defense are obvious: national sovereignty, interference in African and Zimbabwean affairs, and claims that the US is acting to prevent distribution of land from white farmers to landless blacks. We can preempt these defenses by making the following points: -- the US seeks to give the Zimbabwean people the right to choose its own leadership in free and fair elections, something they were not given in the 2002 elections; -- the US defends the human and civil rights of all Zimbabweans; it is the black majority which has suffered most from human rights abuses and poor governance; -- the US has always supported land redistribution designed to benefit Zimbabwe's poor, something the Mugabe regime's land reform has not done; -- the Mugabe land redistribution and economic policies have failed the basic test of governance by creating the conditions in which Zimbabweans are no longer able to feed themselves. In response to the corollary point made by the GOZ and some South Africans that Zimbabweans must be left to solve their problems themselves, the counter is that -- the GOZ and ZANU-PF have declined to engage in any serious dialogue since initially agreeing to an agenda for dialogue in May of 2002. SULLIVAN