Analysts Say Good Harare-Washington Relations Essential to Zimbabwe Recovery - PART 4 of 5 | Voice of America - English
United States officials have made it clear that Washington won?t fund economic recovery in Zimbabwe unless there?s genuine political power sharing. A recent agreement between President Robert Robert Mugabe and two factions of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has inspired hope that Zimbabwe may soon be on the road to recovery. The country?s been wracked with political violence and economic chaos for almost a decade. Mr. Mugabe has in large part blamed the West, including the United States, for his people?s suffering. President George W. Bush has dismissed Mr.
US officials are watching political developments inZimbabwe with great interest, but analysts say they?re adopting a?wait-and-see? approach. ?Everyonewants to see if Robert Mugabe is truly going to share power with MorganTsvangirai. That?s the big question. If there are concrete indications thatsome power at least is shifting in Zimbabwe, then I think we are likely to seemore pronouncements from countries such as the US,? says Professor PieterFourie, the head of the University of Johannesburg?s political sciencedepartment. Asthe euphoria has faded following the signing of the pact, Fourie says thecomplexity of the situation has revealed itself in the ?grim reality? ofnegotiating for cabinet posts between the opposing camps. Manyin Zimbabwe and in the international community are skeptical that Mr. Mugabewill be able to put aside his differences with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai,Zimbabwe?s new prime minister under the terms of the power-sharing accord, whomthe president accuses of being a ?stooge? of Britain and the United States. Fourie says it appears the deal is ?unraveling? and thatif this is indeed the case, Zimbabwe will continue to be deprived ofWashington?s essential financial support. Duringhis speech at a function acknowledging the power-sharing pact, Mr. Mugabecontinued his railing against Western ?forces? he says are meddling in hiscountry and cooperating with Tsvangirai in trying to exploit Zimbabwe. ?Theproblem we have had is a problem that has been created by former colonialpowers, who wanted to continue to interfere in our domestic affairs andcontinue to have a share of our natural resources,? Mr. Mugabe stated. ZANU-PFbitterness towards the United States increased during the first round ofelections, when Washington?s ambassador in Harare, James McGee, clashedrepeatedly with the authorities as a result of political violence in Zimbabwe.The diplomat accused Mr. Mugabe?s forces of brutality and repeated the chargesas ZANU-PF supporters attacked MDC supporters before the June run-off poll.After Mr. Mugabe had won the run-off unopposed and once again declared himselfpresident, President Bush made it clear that Washington did not consider thisto be a legitimate expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people. ?Ithink the Bush administration has been right to tell it like it is, to behonest about repression in Zimbabwe,? says Michelle Gavin, a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations and the author of her organization?s SpecialReport on Zimbabwe. She is, however, convinced that the USgovernment?s constant, direct and strong ?condemnation of Robert Mugabe specifically? in sort of an individualized attack and letting that be the main message ?maybe was a bit of a mistake.? Gavinsays rather than attacking Mr. Mugabe, the US could perhaps have focused onproviding more aid to the people of Zimbabwe and mobilizing international helpfor the country?s inhabitants. Shesays President Mugabe has used the vehement criticism against him by Washingtonand others to his advantage. Gavin says he?s been ?quite good at spinning outthis narrative in which all of the problems in Zimbabwe ? which are reallylargely the result of gross economic mismanagement and corruption ? are theresult of some kind of Western neo-colonial conspiracy.? Gavinsays Washington sometimes made it sound as if US policy was just about condemningMr. Mugabe, rather than wanting to protect the rights of Zimbabweans, and this?inadvertently? allowed the president to claim he was a victim. Throughouthis political campaigning, Mr. Mugabe alleged that the MDC was a front for theUS and Britain. He continued this theme in his speech after the agreement hadbeen signed, saying, ?Why, why, why the hand of the British? Why, why,why the hand of the Americans here? Let us ask that. Let us not ignore thetruth as we move forward?.? Analysts say Mr. Mugabe?s paranoia about the Westis clearly evident in the language used in the power-sharing accord itself.Under an article entitled ?External Interference,? the parties commit themselves to?non-interference? in internal matters and agree that the responsibility forchange in Zimbabwe rests with its people and that ?no outsiders have a right tocall for or campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe.? President Mugabe?s hand is also seen in a clause thatimplicates the US and others in the suffering of Zimbabweans. For example, ittakes note of Washington?s enactment of the Zimbabwe Democracy and EconomicRecovery Act, ?which outlaws Zimbabwe?s right to access credit frominternational financial institutions in which the United States Government isrepresented or has a stake.? Theagreement says measures taken by the US have ?contributed to Zimbabwe?seconomic decline.? Mr.Mugabe constantly blames sanctions, especially those imposed by the UnitedStates and the European Union, for Zimbabwe?s economic implosion, but Gavinsays the president is ?totally wrong? in this. ?Thosesanctions really have nothing to do with the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. Theyare quite narrowly targeted to address travel restrictions and the assets of avery small group of elites in Zimbabwe. I do think that they were entirelyappropriate. It makes sense to isolate and try to put pressure on actors whoare repressing their own people and sending Zimbabwe into this downwardspiral.? Thepower-sharing agreement nevertheless calls for the lifting of all sanctions ?something the US says it will not do unless it?s convinced that real democraticreform is underway. Washingtondenies that its policies and sanctions have hurt Zimbabweans and points outthat it remains a leading donor of humanitarian aid to the southern Africannation. Gavinacknowledges that the US sanctions against President Mugabe and leading membersof his administration have had ?limited effect. They?re probably most powerful asa clear expression of condemnation more than anything else.? She?ssure, though, that Washington will continue to press for certain key reforms inZimbabwe, no matter which direction the talks on the form and shape of a newcabinet take. ?Basicrespect for human rights, and civil and political rights. No more rounding up andbeating people for their political views. Accountability, when incidents likethis do occur so that the perpetrators of these crimes are held responsible ina court of law. Freedom of the press. An end to the manipulation ofhumanitarian aid where one has to declare loyalty to ZANU-PF in order to accessassistance, while others are denied.? Gavinsays as far as the US is concerned, ?sweeping economic reform? has to be one ofZimbabwe?s top priorities. ?Theeconomy has to be wrested from the grip of the Joint Operations Command, thisgroup of ruling party security elites who are essentially running the country.There will have to be transparent, sound governance of the economy for theinternational community to be interested in providing the support necessary tostabilize this catastrophic economic situation,? she explains. Gavin says Mr. Mugabe has made a lot of Tsvangirai?s perceived friendly relationshipwith the West, and especially Washington. But she?s adamant that ?US policyisn?t to be backing Morgan Tsvangirai because he?s Morgan Tsvangirai. There?scertainly a desire to see the will of the Zimbabwean people as expressed in theMarch election, respected, but then these basic governance issues have to beaddressed, no matter who is in power.? She says the US will support Tsvangirai in the event of?real reform? in Zimbabwe, not because the MDC leader is a ?darling? of theWest. ?It?sreally about governance issues rather than the specific individual ruling thecountry,? Gavin maintains. She says if Zimbabwe begins to change for thebetter, Washington will be willing to provide ?significant financial andtechnical assistance? for a recovery plan. ?Thatplan would have to be multifaceted, it would have to multilateral. No onecountry is going to help Zimbabwe get back on its feet. It?s going to take aninternational effort,? she insists. But Gavin says the US would be a ?robust player? in thisinternational effort, ?with resources?technical assistance and politicalbacking to address a range of problems, like the stabilization of the currency,the need for better economic governance?and the critical issue of land reform.?