#zimbabwe Britain: Coy, proud or hard-hearted? Tichaona Zindoga Senior Political Writer Three important things happened in the past week that may be used to unpack the relationship between Zimbabwe and its erstwhile coloniser, Britain. Add to that, yet, the recent arrival of a new British Ambassador Catriona Laing, to replace one Deborah Bronnett. The three events proposed for review above are: the arrival of a British trade delegation, the partial removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe by the European Union and the denial of visa to a Zimbabwe Tourism Authority team which was supposed to travel to the UK. How these events were also framed in the media also throws light on the attempt at understanding the psyche and behaviour of Britain and what this implies for its relations with Zimbabwe. Reuters reported that the visit by the British business delegation “for the first time in nearly 20 years” “might mark a thawing in relations between the African state and its former colonial ruler.” The British government sponsored the trip and had taken 18 months to prepare for. Reuters said the visit sought to “see how British companies can help the cash-strapped government in Harare raise money to fund its economic programmes.” Ambassador Laing announced on the occasion of the visit that Britain was “the largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe, spending $116m this year”. On the other hand, the European Union announced that it was removing financial and trade sanctions but emphasised that sanctions would remain on President Mugabe. The third marker involves Karikoga Kaseke, the Chief Executive Officer of ZTA. We are told that his visa was denied by this powerful individual who wrote to him to the effect that, “In light of your association, I consider it undesirable to issue you entry clearance and I am not prepared to exercise discretion in your favour.” The association, it is understood, is associating with the ruling Zanu-PF party, President Mugabe’s party. As such, the same esteemed favour Kaseke sought could not be extended to journalists in his delegation. This denial of UK visa to Kaseke and his delegation is the second in as many years. Now, it is for all to see that the frosty relationship between Zimbabwe and Britain (or is it Britain and Zimbabwe) has reached a stage where the frostiness has become irrelevant, anachronistic, untenable and embarrassing, even. True, emotions have run high, losses and gains made, respect lost and won, and so on; but there seems to be an identification that the two countries need to find each other again. And typical of any diplomacy or even courtship in human relations, the situation is rather sensitive and uncomfortable, giving rise to the question of whether Britain is being coy, proud or playing hard-hearted. Let us examine from the latter point. Britain instigated European Union (US, and other Anglo-Saxon countries) to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe to help the former colonial master to achieve regime change, after seeing its scions lose stolen land. The EU largely works on the basis of consensus and the 28 or so members had little choice but to follow hurt Britain’s lead even when some individual countries such as Portugal, France, Belgium were said to have reservations. But for the whole bloc of European countries to descend on a small, African country was both a political-diplomatic and psychological tool to cow the hapless latter into submission. This would considerably levy a lot of concessions, including, conceivably, the reversal of the land reform programme. It has been observed that some countries in the EU did not have any beef, to use the colloquial term, with Zimbabwe yet they were willing to see the back of sanctions because, in a way, the sanctions in fact negatively affected them. This was the special case with Belgium. Belgium, which happens also to be the seat of the EU, is the centre of global diamond trade. This little country stood to lose out on the slew of gems coming from Zimbabwe, the latter being estimated by some to possess a quarter of the world’s rough diamonds. There are other centres in Israel and India, notably, to which Belgium didn’t want to lose its glory. So, Belgium pushed for the lifting of Zimbabwe sanctions, in particular the body corporate that deals with mining, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation. It succeeded, and what has followed is the gradual lifting of more sanctions. But this was not without diplomatic posturing. Take this September 5, 2013 Reuters report, for example: Zimbabwe had just held its elections, which had been hailed by most observer missions. Holding of credible elections had been held up by the EU as one benchmark for the removal of sanctions. The EU noted some concerns over the elections but did not expressly condemn the same. To Belgium, in the absence of the formal condemnation, removing sanctions on ZMDC was in order. “For us, there is an agreement,” Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hendrik van de Velde was quoted as saying. But then developed some disagreement. Said Reuters: “Former colonial power Britain, which has been more critical of the Zimbabwean elections than the EU as a whole, is reluctant to see a rush to lift sanctions on ZMDC.” A “Foreign Office spokeswoman” was quoted as saying that “no decision has yet been taken regarding the de-listing of any individual or entity under the measures related to Zimbabwe . . .” From what has been seen, as in a diplomatic negotiations situation, Britain is apparently playing the hard-hearted partner. This would allow the “reasonable” EU to talk Zimbabwe into making concessions. It is yet to be established whether that has so far worked. All the same Britain remains aloof. Is it about the pride of the former colonial master? Well it is entitled to being proud, even bragging that it is the “largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe” (not so sure if America has not been saying the same thing, to wash away its guilt over sanctions). Britain once made an empire — a big one. It no longer makes an empire but the residual pride is there. Does this have anything by way of impact over how it approaches relations with Zimbabwe in general and, in particular, the lifting of the ineffective sanctions (because sanctions have not achieved regime change and that the land reform is now irreversible)? Britain can delay at its own peril and needs reminding that time and circumstance have shorn it of past glory. No one needs to repeat that Chinese newspapers’ observation of how low Britain has sunk. Then, by way of the last point of this analysis, is Britain playing coy, and wants to be courted by suitors such as Zimbabwe? Seventeenth Century English poet Andrew Marvell taught the world about coy English mistresses that required that: “An hundred years should go to praise/Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze /Two hundred to adore each breast/But thirty thousand to the rest/An age at least to every part/And the last age should show your heart.” But then, even as Marvell would fear of beauty, Britain’s beauty is “no more be found” and worms have tried “that long preserved virginity”. In other words, Britain has a lot of reality checking if it has to establish progressive relationships, even with former colonies.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:18:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015