PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT FACT-FINDING MISSION TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L PRETORIA 002872 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR AF/S S. HILL, R. MARBURG E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/15/2017 TAGS: PREL PHUM AORC KDEM ZI SF SUBJECT: PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT FACT-FINDING MISSION TO ZIMBABWE DELAYED REF: 04 PRETORIA 3416 Classified By: Acting Political Counselor Catherine Kay. Reasons 1.4(b ) and (d). ¶1. (C) The planned Pan-African Parliament (PAP) fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe is bogged down in political and administrative bickering, according to PAP Member of Parliament (MP) Suzanne Vos (protect). Vos, who also serves as an MP in the South African Parliament for the Inkatha Freedom Party, told POLOFF August 7 that she is frustrated by the delays. (NOTE: Established in 2004, the Johannesburg-based Pan-African Parliament is the "legislative body" of the African Union, although it has no formal law-making power. It is made up of five MPs from each of the AU member states (reftel). END NOTE.) ¶2. (C) Vos proposed a motion in the PAP on May 14 to send a mission to Zimbabwe to investigate "matters relating to human rights, good governance, transparency, and the rule of law." The motion passed by a show of hands by an overwhelming margin of 149 to 29. Vos said that one MP from the African National Congress, whom she refused to name, even sent her a note congratulating her on the motion. Besides the ZANU-PF MPs, Vos does not know who voted against the motion. She does not believe that the PAP keeps record of votes by show of hands. ¶3. (C) Since the passage of the motion, Vos reported that nothing has happened on the mission. In theory, the PAP administration should have sent a letter to the Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) requesting permission to send a fact-finding team to Zimbabwe. The GOZ will likely reject the request, Vos noted, but she believes the rebuff would show Mugabe in defiance of an African institution and require the PAP -- and ultimately the AU itself -- to respond. ¶4. (C) Instead of sending the letter to the GOZ, Vos understands that the PAP staff has "dithered." The GOZ has privately argued that the PAP can only authorize a fact-finding trip through a resolution, not a motion. Vos says this is a blatantly incorrect reading of PAP procedural rules. Vos also heard that PAP leaders were "attacked" at the AU Summit in Accra, especially by SADC leaders, for "allowing the Zimbabwe debate to happen, let alone get the motion passed." ¶5. (C) COMMENT: We were initially encouraged by the PAP decision to send an investigative team to Zimbabwe, and especially by the wide margin of approval from African MPs. While the PAP is largely a toothless organization, it theoretically represents African governments, and the decision to investigate the situation in Zimbabwe sent a signal to Mugabe that even fellow Africans are increasingly concerned about the political crisis in his country. However, the lack of action (or inability to act) on the PAP mission to Zimbabwe since the May vote underscores yet again the reticence of African institutions to confront Mugabe and others with poor governance records. END COMMENT. ¶6. (U) This cable was coordinated with USAU. Teitelbaum