GOZ REACTS STRONGLY TO US STATEMENT ON NGO BILL

C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 002046 SIPDIS AF/S FOR BNEULING NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE, D. TEITELBAUM PARIS FOR C. NEARY E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2009 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL ZI SUBJECT: GOZ REACTS STRONGLY TO US STATEMENT ON NGO BILL REF: HARARE 2003 Classified By: Ambassador Christopher W. Dell under Section 1.4 b/d ¶1. (U) On December 14, the government-run Herald newspaper prominently featured an op-ed piece, "US hypocrisy laid bare," attacking the USG for official statements on the NGO bill recently passed in Parliament (reftel). The feature asserted that the USG reaction was consistent with its &hard and punishing stance on Zimbabwe.8 The article, which accurately quoted from the Department's statement last week on the bill, equated the NGO bill with the Patriot Act. ¶2. (U) According to the Herald, USG criticism of the &same piece of legislation8 as the Patriot Act was tantamount to an admission that that it was working with NGOs to effect regime change in Zimbabwe and that the USG's real objection was that the NGO bill would stop the funding channel to do so. The USG was trying to incite a popular uprising in order to be able to cite political violence when declaring the March 2005 Parliamentary elections not free and fair. The piece cited a litany of purported evidence of prior USG support of regime change and closed with a local academic urging that Zimbabwe "stop paying attention to what the Americans say." ¶3. (C) Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono on December 14 told the Ambassador that President Mugabe was unhappy that the US criticized the NGO bill so strongly. Gono said Mugabe had been considering sending the bill back to Parliament rather than signing it, a possibility Gono credited to his own analysis of the economic impact of the NGO bill, but that Mugabe felt that to do so after such strong criticism would give the appearance of bowing to pressure and compromising Zimbabwean sovereignty. The Ambassador had responded that Mugabe could easily find a face-saving measure, such as sending the bill back to Parliament for &technical8 fixes and then letting it die on the vine. ¶4. (C) COMMENT: The GOZ appears at the highest levels to be paying close attention to our posture on Zimbabwe. So much so, in fact, that the GOZ,s public reactions to our criticisms ensure that a wide audience will note them. Odds are if the GOZ kept quiet, far fewer Zimbabweans would have been aware of our objections to the NGO bill. This counter-productive prickliness in both public and private underscores the extent to which the regime's priority is on firmly reestablishing Mugabe's legitimacy and the GOZ,s credibility on the international stage. The reaction to USG critcism shows both the importance of this leverage and the limits on its effectiveness. It is a tool that we can wield to great effect but only by exercising restraint and using it sparingly to ensure maximum impact. DELL