UNITED States ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton (BW), was recently a guest on SW Radio Africa’s Hot Seat programme with Violet Gonda (VG). Wharton denied reports of behind-the-scenes talks with top Zanu PF officials over a new unity government after elections expected this year and insisted US sanctions against the country could be reviewed if the country made more progress in implementing reforms.
VG: My guest on the programme Hot Seat is US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Bruce Wharton. Welcome to the programme ambassador.
BW: Thanks, it’s a real pleasure to be with you today.
VG: Thank you very much. You arrived in Zimbabwe late last year. Can you tell us what your impression of the country has been so far?
BW: I think my overriding impression is one of positive trends. You know I was here before; left the country in mid-2003 and at that point everything was sort of headed in the wrong direction. Returning to Zimbabwe nearly 10 years later, although I still see a number of pretty significant challenges, I have a sense that there’s been a lot of progress and the trends now are mostly positive. I’m optimistic — not blindly optimistic, but determinedly optimistic and eager to support the people of Zimbabwe as they figure out how they want to manage this society, this country.
VG: You recently issued a statement in which you criticised Zanu PF and the police for the selective application of the law and you also said civil society organisations should not act outside the law. What motivated you to say this?
BW: Well, we have seen what I believe is a pattern of harassment of civil society organisations in Zimbabwe. Raids, police showing up and usually with a warrant, doing it the right way, but on grounds that don’t seem to hold up. Once the case gets to court, there’s nothing there. Recently there was a civil society organisation that was accused of not being registered as a PVO. In fact, they were registered as a trust. They were perfectly legal, but suffered a police raid on grounds that were sort of nonsensical. So frankly, it appears to me that there is a concerted effort to keep civil society organisations off-balance and unable to fulfil their mandates and that’s a matter for concern. I don’t think that is a way to build a strong vibrant democracy.
VG: And what about on the civil society groups, because you did also mention that they should not act outside of the law? What made you say that?
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
BW: Well, I think there are a couple of civil society groups, perhaps more than just a couple, who believe that some of the laws of this nation are unjust or incorrect and so they will, on occasion, deliberately ignore the law and in my view, that’s a mistake. I think if a civil society group or a citizen believes that a law is a mistaken law or an unjust law, they should seek to change it or change the conditions under which it is enforced rather than deliberately violating the law and provoking a confrontation with police. And that’s my own personal opinion and clearly it’s a complex situation, but that’s the way I see it.
VG: I actually spoke with the Home Affairs co-minister Theresa Makone about the general security issue in the country and she seemed to think that the 2013 elections are going to be bloodier than the 2008 elections. What can you say about this and, based on what you have seen so far in the country, do you agree with this assessment?
BW: I have a lot of respect for Makone and so I do not want to contradict her. It is, of course, my hope, my strong desire and the focus of a lot of my work to make sure that the elections in 2013 are not violent and that they are credible and clearly reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe. Of course, it’s out of my power, it’s not my job here to do the sorts of things that President Robert Mugabe and the Home Affairs co-ministers need to do, but I’m going to do everything that I can to try to make sure that peace-loving Zimbabweans are supported and that the elections are not violent.
VG: Does the US still regard Zimbabwe as an outpost of tyranny?
BW: I don’t believe we . . . I’m not sure where that term came from. We believe that Zimbabwe is a country that has enormous potential, that has made significant progress in the last few years through the government of national unity, through the sorts of political compromises that enable the country to have a new draft constitution and are determined to be good partners to people in Zimbabwe who want to build a stronger, more prosperous, more just and healthier society. VG: I believe the term came from the (former US PresidentGeorge) Bush administration and understand it was also said by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who described Zimbabwe as one of the countries America included as an “outpost of tyranny”.
BW: You know what — what I’m interested in doing really is looking forward at ways that the United States and Zimbabwe can work together to build stronger relationships and have stronger institutions.
The year 2013 is a different year from 2006 and my intent here is to look at ways that we can move forward rather than reflect on conditions of the past. VG: You mentioned that all you want to see is a credible election. What will you define as a credible election outcome?
BW: That’s a very tough question. It’s an excellent question and I think it’s one that the people of Zimbabwe and the international community are going to have to grapple with, but broadly what that means is that the people of Zimbabwe first and secondly the region and the international community, agree that the results of an election reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
VG: Is the US government going to help fund the elections?
BW: Well there’s been no formal request for that at this point. I think you probably know that the government of Zimbabwe has asked the United Nations for election support. The UN has said first we need a needs assessment team — that’s being negotiated right now. If a needs assessment team can come to Zimbabwe, then I think that would open a path forward for international support for elections, but we’re not even there yet so I’m reluctant to speculate about where that may all lead. VG: It had been said that the UN, through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), did not have money, but that the UNDP local representative in Zimbabwe was trying to source the money from the donor community, including countries from the European Union and the US.
BW: Yeh, I think broadly that is correct. My understanding is that the UN cannot and will not move forward in seeking donor support unless they first fully understand the need here in Zimbabwe and that is going to require a UN needs assessment team which, of course, requires an invitation and permission from the government of Zimbabwe.
If the needs assessment team is able to come and do their work — that’ll take a couple of weeks —then they have to do a report and if, in fact, they agree that the UN can be useful then the UN will turn around and ask my government and the EU and other donor nations to provide funding. But that’s too far down the road for me to speculate about whether or not that is going to happen.
VG: If it was to happen, would the US put any conditions for funding the elections?
BW: I think the US believes that the credibility of these elections and the legitimacy of the government that is chosen through these elections is so important that we would be very, very interested and would strongly urge having neutral and independent observation efforts from outside. I think, for example, of the Carter Centre — it’s an international NGO, not affiliated with the US government. In fact, on occasion, they have disagreed with the US government on the legitimacy of elections. Sudan, for example, comes to mind, but having somebody like the Carter Centre in Zimbabwe to watch the elections here would lend huge credibility to the results.
VG: So what do you make of statements by Vice-President Joice Mujuru saying that the Zimbabwean government will not allow international observers from hostile countries?
BW: Well, that’s certainly her view. I certainly do not regard my government as a hostile government.
VG: But we all know that the Zimbabwean government has viewed America and Britain and other countries in the West as hostile to the government. If they continue saying that, will the US still fund Zimbabwe even if observers from your country are not allowed?
BW: Ah, there are too many ifs and conditions in that question! Let me just say Violet that what we want to do right here and right now is to engage meaningfully and productively with people in Zimbabwe, including at the top levels of Zanu PF and all the other political parties and within the last week really, within the last 10 days, we’ve had some very significant meetings with people at the top levels of government and in all of the political parties. I think it’s that sort of engagement, that sort of conversation, that helps us understand one another, that will overcome the distrust and the suspicion that has existed between us for the last decade or so. I think that overcoming those misunderstandings and the distrust will allow us to move forward in productive ways. VG: Some observers have said that the US is covertly engaging Zanu PF because it is seeking to create an environment where there’s an extension of the Global Political Agreement or an extension of the coalition government. Is that the policy of the US?
BW: The policy of the US is that it’s the will of the people of Zimbabwe that matters the most and in any credible, non-violent election. We will work with the government that is chosen through those means, but it’s none of our business frankly, how or who is chosen to lead Zimbabwe, or whether the people of Zimbabwe want a continuation of the current government of national unity or something different. Our interest is in the process and the more transparent and credible and legitimate the process, the easier it will be for us to normalise our relationship and work with whoever is elected.
