Was EU’s re-engagement plan genuine?

Yoliswa Dube
AFTER the escalation of political violence related to the elections in 2002, the European Union (EU) decided to introduce measures against Zimbabwe as a means to put pressure on those considered responsible. At the formation of the inclusive government in 2009, an inter-ministerial team was set up to initiate dialogue to normalise relations with the 28-member  bloc. and lobby for the removal of sanctions, with no success.

The EU operates through a system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the member states. Institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens. The EU’s de facto capital is Brussels.  The engagement between Zimbabwe and the EU has been abandoned following the July 31 election which were resoundingly won by Zanu-PF and endorsed by the African Union and Sadc as fair.

At the initiation of the dialogue, the EU undertook to rely on the Sadc and AU judgment on the election outcome and to that end, invested a lot both technically and financially into the Sadc basket.

The dialogue was expected to explore ways of normalising relations between the two sides that soured in the last decade after Zimbabwe embarked on its land reform programme to address colonial land ownership imbalances. The dialogue had been stalled by the EU’s reluctance to seriously engage Zimbabwe over the matter.

It is understood that top on Zimbabwe’s agenda to the re-engagement dialogue was the issue of illegal sanctions imposed on the country by the European bloc members.

It is, however, questionable whether or not it was a genuine engagement to begin with or it was doomed from the start.  Political analyst Dr Lawton Hikwa believes it was a genuine and honest quest for re-engagement because Zimbabwe cannot be isolated from European countries.

He said bilateral relations were important and Zimbabwe as a state should re-engage the EU but this is dependent on mutual understanding between the two parties.

“Certain parameters should be set and there should be political goodwill and honesty,” said Dr Hikwa. He said a new committee to engage the EU was crucial and there was need to re-strategise. Dr Hikwa said the new government needed to find ways of re-engaging the EU because the success of this engagement would culminate in a number of improvements in the country.

“Zimbabwe is isolated and it does not have any lines of credit. If the economic embargo is lifted, it will most certainly improve the country’s bilateral trade,” he said. In February 2011, the EU concluded that significant progress had been made in addressing the economic crisis in Zimbabwe and in improving the delivery of social services.

However, it insisted more reforms were necessary with regards to the respect for the rule of law, human rights and democracy. The EU decided to lift measures on 35 persons and to renew the remaining measures for one year. The measures had three components: suspension of government to government cooperation, targeted measures against individuals and companies and an arms embargo.

A political analyst, Dr Nhamo Mhiripiri, said the re-engagement was doomed because of differences of opinion among the parties in the Inclusive Government.

“The unity of purpose was questionable  and the GNU itself was questionable. It was not a united body. It was naivety  on Zimbabwe’s part to deal with one  body to begin with. It should have rather targeted certain countries individually,”  he said.

Dr Mhiripiri said this would have been more effective because EU countries might have had different interests in Zimbabwe.
“Approaching individual countries would have been more ideal. Going forward, approaching the EU directly might cause challenges such as the existence of many formalities that might delay the process. They are not all similarly inclined, other countries might have economic or even cultural interests in Zimbabwe, such as Belgium and the issue of diamonds trade,” he said.

Dr Ndaba Ncube said the engagement between Zimbabwe and the EU was appropriate at the time but it was meant  to meet certain conditions and naturally if they were not met, the dialogue would collapse.

“They (EU) expected certain things to happen which did not. If re-engagement is to commence and it is genuine that would be good but if there are strings attached then there is no point, it becomes problematic. I believe engagement or no engagement we have a mandate to live. People should look forward to bettering the economy. There  is a lot that can be done to better the economy. The EU is a key player to achieve this but we certainly have alternatives,” said Dr Ncube.

A visa ban and asset freeze is being enforced against individuals whose activities are considered to undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The list is reassessed on an annual basis to ensure it is applied to the relevant individuals.

In February 2011, the EU removed 35 persons from the list, leaving 163 persons who are prevented from travelling to and accessing their assets in the EU.

Also affected are 31 companies associated with those persons targeted by the visa ban and a few controlled by State authorities. On the arms embargo, individuals or companies of EU member states are prohibited from the supply or sale of arms and related munitions to Zimbabwe.