Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brussels outcome no victory for Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Independent via ZWNews ^ | December 1, 2002 | (comment page)

Posted on 12/01/2002 2:49:54 AM PST by Clive

It is symptomatic of the warped thinking going on in the upper echelons of Zimbabwe today that the jeopardising of billions of dollars in trade and aid for developing countries could be represented as a victory!

That is exactly what our rulers and their minions in the media want us to believe: that Zimbabwe, in securing the solidarity of ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) states over the exclusion of two Zimbabwean officials from the European parliament's premises, where a session of the EU/ACP joint parliamentary assembly was due to be held on Monday, represents a victory for this government.

Exactly how is difficult to fathom. The Cotonou Agreement provides privileged access for the exports of former European colonies to the world's largest and most lucrative market. In other words they get in ahead of the competition.

The most contentious example is the huge market provided by Britain and Germany for bananas from the Caribbean. American companies producing bananas in Central America cite this as a form of protectionism - which it is.

The trade system established under Lome in its four manifestations and continued under Cotonou benefits the associate states in many different ways. Millions of Euros are allocated every year to development projects in ACP states. Sadc is a notable beneficiary.

But the Europeans rightly insist that if EU funds are to be generously disbursed to developing countries, they must adhere to best practice in governance. In other words they shouldn't do what so many of those expressing solidarity with Zimbabwe this week have done with the billions of dollars given to them since Independence - lost them, wasted them or stolen them.

The Cotonou Agreement lays down that "respect for human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law, which underpin the EU/ACP partnership shall constitute the essential elements of this agreement".

Zimbabwe is in open violation of those terms. It has subverted the rule of law, trampled on the human rights of its citizens, and made a mockery of democratic principles. Its economy is in a state of advanced decay as a direct result of this misrule.

As co-president of the EU/ACP joint parliamentary assembly Glenys Kinnock pointed out this week, the ACP grouping includes some of the most disadvantaged countries in the world. Forty out of the 78 ACP states are classified as "Least Developed Countries", 15 are landlocked, 38 have serious levels of poverty, and 33 others are particularly vulnerable as small island states.

The principles of democracy and the rule of law on which the Cotonou Agreement is built are fundamental because development and prosperity cannot take place without them. If the EU were to ignore them it would be pouring money down the drain - as happened so often in the past.

The 15 EU member states have publics they must answer to. They expect their money to be spent wisely and accountably. They also expect to see some benefit to the people of developing countries, not the Swiss bank accounts of their rulers.

The EU legislators can therefore be expected to stand firm on the issue of governance. They cannot afford to allow people who are part of a regime which sabotages agricultural production, violates human rights and manipulates electoral outcomes to carry on as if it were business as usual with donors.

Many of those this week expressing public sympathy with Zimbabwe's rogue regime will no doubt be returning privately to say they had no choice. There will be urgent appeals for the aid tap to be left open.

But the EU must make it clear that countries associating themselves with oppression and misgovernance cannot have it both ways. Either they abide by democratic rules or they lose the privileges accorded to them under Cotonou. There must be consistency of purpose.

As Kinnock pointed out, "our electorates don't understand it when politicians take decisions which they don't follow through in a consistent way".

One of the most important outcomes in all this is the resolve shown by MEPs despite centrifugal national interests. Only a few months ago we were told that other EU states were refusing to support Britain's position on Zimbabwe. Now they all seem to be of one mind. How does the government explain that?

This is clearly not a defeat for Britain or the EU. It is the people of 78 developing countries who will suffer. They are the victims of a misplaced nationalism that suggests governments can abuse their populations and get away with it.

Not any longer it seems.

The people of Zimbabwe, who the ACP regimes don't appear to give a damn about, will show little enthusiasm for their government's fictional victory in Brussels. They understand only too well the meaning of Zanu PF's sovereignty: shortages of everything, growing poverty and starvation.

This "triumph" of foreign policy denies to them the benefits of international cooperation and brings home the cost of isolation.

Meanwhile let's see what the ACP states offer by way of assistance to the regime they endorsed in Belgium.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: africawatch; zimbabwe
"Meanwhile let's see what the ACP states offer by way of assistance to the regime they endorsed in Belgium."
1 posted on 12/01/2002 2:49:54 AM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *AfricaWatch; Cincinatus' Wife; sarcasm; Travis McGee; happygrl; Byron_the_Aussie; robnoel; ...
-
2 posted on 12/01/2002 2:50:22 AM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"Many of those this week expressing public sympathy with Zimbabwe's rogue regime will no doubt be returning privately to say they had no choice. There will be urgent appeals for the aid tap to be left open."

For far too long we have allowed recipient nations, particularly African ones, to suck and blow in the same breath on issues of good governance.

3 posted on 12/01/2002 2:53:36 AM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
The EU legislators can therefore be expected to stand firm on the issue of governance. They cannot afford to allow people ........... to carry on as if it were business as usual with donors.

But the EU must make it clear that countries associating themselves with oppression and misgovernance cannot have it both ways..........There must be consistency of purpose.

What a joke. Of course EU can "carry on with business as usual". They've done so for decades. Why would EU suddenly have consistency of purpose? They've never done so before, unless it's to stick it to the USA.

4 posted on 12/01/2002 4:32:34 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
The 15 EU member states have publics they must answer to.

They might start by answering why Europe owes anything to a bunch of dictatorships. All the rules for accountabliity are a bad joke, just like the UN inspections going on in Iraq. The dictators are going to get the money, one way or another and the people will not be helped. Just watch and see. "A fool and his money are soon parted."

5 posted on 12/01/2002 6:07:17 AM PST by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson