Story Behind Britain, Allies Intransigence

Republic of Zimbabwe Vice-President Joice Mujuru meets with ambassadors from Germany and Britain. Zimbabwe is a leading country on the African continent., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.

Story behind Britain, allies intransigence

October 8, 2013
Caesar Zvayi Deputy Editor
Zimbabwe Herald

IT is common diplomatic practice to periodically move ambassadors from their postings and deploy them elsewhere to avoid the danger of contamination that comes through the development of relationships and personal attachments with the politics of host countries.

When this happens, an envoy is compromised making his/her dispatches suspect. But even this rule, it seems would still have fallen short in the case of three Western ambassadors Ms Deborah Bronnert of Britain, Mr Bruce Wharton of the US and his Australian counterpart Mr Matthew Neuhaus who have let their sympathies for the opposition MDC-T and their personal affinities to Zimbabwe lead them to misinform their capitals in a way that has created an impasse between Zimbabwe and their home countries.

So dire is the situation that sources at the US embassy in Harare say Washington will, in the coming weeks, dispatch deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau of African affairs Dr Shannon Smith to Harare to ascertain the true Zimbabwean story in light of unreliable dispatches from Mr Wharton.

Australia, Britain and the US have continued casting aspersions on the harmonised elections that have been widely endorsed by the African Union, Sadc, Comesa, the African Caribbean and Pacific countries, and over 40 countries spread across all five continents.

This has put the three countries at cross-purposes with the progressive world and raised the spectre of race relations, all because of dishonest dispatches by embedded envoys.

Sources say the misinformation, which has since been picked by their capitals, has put Australia, Britain and the US in an unenviable position that requires embarrassing climbdowns, which is why Washington had taken the lead to send a fact-finding official.

In fact, sources in the diplomatic community say, the trio no longer sees eye-to-eye with moderates like EU head of delegation Mr Aldo Del’Arricia, with whom they interact in the Fishmonger Group.

A look at the history of the envoys concerned reveals that apart from the obvious constraints of kinship that put them in solidarity with their kinsmen who lost the farms they held during the fast-track land reform programme, the ambassadors all have personal attachment to Zimbabwe that makes them virtual activists rather than envoys.

Ms Bronnert of the 10 000 assisted voters infamy, apart from the kith and kin issue, was in Zimbabwe soon after independence in 1980 as a housewife to a soldier who was part of the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT) that helped in the integration Zanla, Zipra and Rhodesian Front soldiers to form the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.

As such, Ms Bronnert had a long running association with, and developed personal affinities that have clouded her view of developments in Zimbabwe.

Mr Wharton, who presented his credentials to President Mugabe on November 15, 2012, lived in Zimbabwe for years as a senior official in the United States Information Service during which time he got exposed to the contending politics in Zimbabwe which saw him develop his own affinities which, however, did not translate into affinities for Zanu-PF.

The USIS houses VOA which in turn chaperoned Studio 7, the pirate radio broadcast conceived to abet MDC-T’s regime change agenda.

Although Mr Wharton could not be reached for confirmation, it is understood that Studio 7 was one of the key projects which USIS Harare launched in the wake of the deterioration of relations between Harare and Washington although it is not clear whether Mr Wharton played a direct role.

It has also emerged that the budget for Studio 7 was being met from USAID Zimbabwe and not from the VOA budget, and in the run-up to the harmonised elections, USAID had indicated it would not continue funding Studio 7 because, in the words of a US official, “the MDC would have overtaken ZBC anyway.’’

Mr Wharton’s intricate involvement in Zimbabwe’s domestic politics has prompted the US State Department to schedule a visit by Dr Smith who is expected in Harare in the coming weeks. It is believed that she comes to try and get a clearer picture of the dynamics in Zimbabwe as opposed to the adverse report that was dispatched by the US embassy.

As for Mr Neuhaus, unlike the others, the issue of Zimbabwe has become an emotional matter. It has emerged that when Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth in 2003, Mr Neuhaus was Director of the Political Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat in London where he was from 2002-2008 meaning he had something to do with the recommendation to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth.

Mr Neuhaus also had Zimbabwe as a subject matter in one of his studies, so he has that emotional connection with Zimbabwe. He is also well regarded as a senior diplomat in Australia.

However, the combination of a new conservative Government in Canberra and the significant interest of the Australians in Zimbabwe’s diamond industry might very well force a review of Australia’s stance on Zimbabwe the same way Belgium prevailed on the EU to lift sanctions on the ZMDC.

In the case of the British the business community in London last week held a seminar which looked at post-July 31 which suggested that there is a domestic groundswell in Britain for a business engagement in Zimbabwe in the wake of the intensified activities by Chinese investors.

One of the key speakers at the seminar was Professor Steven Chan, an Africa specialist at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London took an uncharacteristic yet very clear line on Zimbabwe’s electoral politics telling the gathering that the MDC-T lost because Zanu-PF had deeper grounding, ran a sleek campaign and that there was no abuse of the ballot and more importantly that the time to move into Zimbabwe is now saying Zanu-PF was there to stay in the foreseeable future.

Veteran British establishment journalist and executive director of the Royal African Society, Richard Dowden recently urged Britain, in an article we reproduce elsewhere in this issue to stop sulking and engage Zimbabwe.

“Mugabe is back in power, and planning to give 51 percent ownership of all foreign companies to Zimbabweans. The one consolation for the MDC is that it will not have to impose the painful monetary policies on Zimbabweans necessary to restore the economy. That is Mugabe’s problem now.

His record shows that after victory he can be magnanimous as long as he stays in control. If he reaches out to Britain for help he might ask for economic help what would the British government do? It must accept that it has shot its bolt and missed. It would not be in Britain’s interest to sulk,’’ he said.

Dr Smith ‘s visit, coupled with President Mugabe’s call for zero-tolerance on corruption and crackdown on corruption has been noted in European capitals, and has also set global imperatives that have made the issue of maintaining sanctions difficult to sustain.

The EU’s decision to lift sanctions on ZMDC at the insistence of Belgium has seen the European bloc moving faster than the Americans in the direction of removing sanctions.

It, however, is not clear whether the EU will fund or not fund Zimbabwean programmes under the 11th EU Fund in the wake of the EU’s decision to remove sanctions on diamond companies.

It is interesting to note that British premier, David Cameroon has not pronounced himself on the harmonised elections amid reports the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is ready to re-engage but is being encumbered by foreign secretary William Hague, who was the leader of the Conservatives at the time Blair whipped up emotions on Zimbabwe, and is still in the trenches.