EU games in perspective

which this development can be looked at is how the EU is using the classic diplomatic technique of carrot-and-stick by ostensibly “rewarding” “progress” and “reform” and “reformers” while maintaining pressure on “hardliners”. This can be read with last year’s removal of 37 individuals and six companies in the context of a “calibrated” or “gradual” or “partial” strategy of lifting of sanctions which the body said would adopt. This is what Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has been advocating, being on record as having advised that such easing of sanctions be anchored by the maintenance of “leverage” on Zimbabwe.
By “leverage”, it can be pointed out, the MDC-T leader meant that sanctions should continue to hurt so that necessary concessions from the sanctioned could be extracted. This leads to the context of elections which form the other context in which the latest move from the EU can be read.
In fact, with elections on the horizon, the EU seems frantic to engage President Mugabe and Zanu-PF so that they can be amenable to a “free and fair” election which needlessly should be held in EU terms.
In EU terms “free and fair” with regards to Zimbabwe’s elections is synonymous with seeking a loss for President Mugabe and a win for PM Tsvangirai.
Another major context is that of lawsuits against the EU itself by Zimbabweans coupled with the exposure of the EU’s hypocrisy in defeating its vaunted causes such as democracy and free speech by sanctioning media practitioners. An examination of the above elements will demonstrate why some quarters have dismissed the latest move as a non-event.
Simply because the EU illegally imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, outside of the UN and even its own regulations, there is a strong feeling that the sanctions should be lifted unconditionally and as a whole.
This makes crap of such talk as “reform” and even ridiculously so, the “implementation of the GPA”, because none of the two formed the motivation to punish Zimbabwe in the first place. The land reform programme did, as Britain exported its bilateral land dispute to its EU cousins some of which have been said to be not so eager in the same. There is superfluity in the talk of “reform” just as the removal of dead people, wives and children of politicians and those considered to be less influential or some few personal companies, does not change the impact of sanctions. Zimbabwe will not be grateful that its Foreign and Justice Ministers, so far the only ministers pardoned, have been removed from the EU hit list.
This is because they cannot be called reformers in the EU sense of the word but have to be grudgingly roped in to facilitate “serious” “reengagement” dialogue. Elections represent a big question in, and between Zimbabwe and the EU. The EU, has not been recognising elections held in Zimbabwe since 2000 alleging they lacked credibility. There is a justified conviction that the MDC and the West will only regard as free and fair an election that has MDC as victors. It is a safe guess that EU will be trying to lay groundwork for an MDC victory — ironically with the help of Zanu-PF. Another factor will be the regional bloc Sadc which for long Brussels has regarded as critical in serving its purpose here. Interestingly, there is a familiar face for the EU. Lindiwe Zulu, a facilitator in the inter-party dialogue on behalf South African President and also his international relations advisor, has been to Brussels as South African diplomat.It goes without saying she has so far been controversial, sometimes tending to be uncharitable to Zanu-PF.
At some point she called the party’s demands as “daydreaming”. A point should be made that the EU, singly or in concert with other world bodies, is clearly not altruistic in its interest in Zimbabwe.
It cannot be allowed to play judge and jury in Zimbabwe. It cannot also be allowed to get away with murder as it apparently seeks to undermine legal suits challenging the legality of the embargo.
It is to be remembered that when non-constituency Senator Aguy Georgias sued the EU in the British High court, he was struck off the sanctions list in 2011.
Zimbabwe has indicated that it can sue the EU in European courts. The EU is not prepared to face such actions.Who says bullies are cowards?
This means that Zimbabwe must pursue all measures necessary to counter the manoeuvrings of the West without being distracted or hoodwinked by petty gestures from the West. Zimbabwe must not give room for the EU in elections.
This is because the EU has shown to be impartial and cannot be trusted with any role in any credible election processes. At any rate, allowing the EU or any other Western countries to come and monitor or lecture Zimbabwe only perpetuates the idea that the West is Africa’s “Big Brother”, an outdated and undesirable situation. With what the world has seen in recent times, allowing the EU and its Western allies anywhere near Zimbabwe’s elections will be tantamount to courting disaster. They will at one level seek to manipulate election results or try to subvert the same if the results do not go in their favour. After all they are the owners of the means of communication, and everyone knows how much that critical that is.