US embassy cable - 04HARARE1563

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 001563 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE 
LONDON FOR C. GURNEY 
PARIS FOR C. NEARY 
NAIROBI FOR T. PFLAUMER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/15/2014 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, ZI, Parliamentary Affairs 
SUBJECT: NGO BILL: GOZ MOVING FORWARD 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Christopher W. Dell under Section 1.5 b/d. 
 
1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: UN Resrep Victor Angelo briefed DCM and 
USAID Rep on the state-of-play with respect to the NGO bill. 
Angelo noted that his efforts to broker a compromise with the 
GOZ had yet to bear fruit and had been damaged by the vocal 
opposition of local NGOs at a September 7 public 
parliamentary hearing on the bill.  He said the government 
saw the issue in terms of national security and it asserted 
that, most countries had legislation regulating NGO 
activities.  The core problems with Zimbabwe's bill were two 
articles that banned foreign NGOs and foreign financing of 
local NGOs, both of which violated Zimbabwe's international 
obligations.  Angelo's approach remains to convince the GOZ 
to amend the bill to address these specific concerns and to 
include transitional arrangements that would protect the 
registration status of existing NGOs.  END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
UN Continuing Efforts to Broker a Compromise 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
2. (C) UN Resident representative Victor Angelo on September 
9 told the DCM and USAID Director that his office had 
underscored international objections on the bill to "the 
highest level" of the GOZ.  He cautioned that the 
international community needed to couch its opposition 
carefully as laws regulating NGOs were common throughout both 
the developing and developed world, and there was little 
disputing a country's right to regulate NGOs.  That said, the 
Zimbabwean bill contained several elements that were 
inconsistent with other countries' laws and with Zimbabwe,s 
international obligations.  Specifically, articles 9(4) and 
17 of the bill banning some foreign NGOs from operating in 
Zimbabwe and barring foreign funding of some local violated 
Article 71 of the UN Charter, a 1998 UNGA resolution on 
protection of "human rights defenders", and African Union 
obligations, among other international laws.  Moreover, the 
bill's vague transitional provisions would leave in limbo 
numerous currently legal entities.  Finally, the bill was too 
broad and would confer too much power to the NGO Council to 
impinge unduly on NGO operations. 
 
3.  (C) Angelo said the UN had focused on changing or 
removing these four aspects of the bill in its discussions 
with the GOZ.  However, they had made little headway in 
convincing the GOZ to amend the bill.  He said senior ZANU-PF 
contacts had told him privately that the NGOs had made some 
valid points about the bill and that there had been some 
sympathy for amendments.  However, that sympathy had 
dissipated following a parliamentary hearing on the bill 
September 7 during which several NGOs had made ferocious 
assaults on the bill, its drafters, and the government.  This 
had confirmed to the ruling party that many of the NGOs were 
simply "western agents" trying to engineer "regime change" 
and had further convinced them that the bill was needed. 
Angelo noted that a number of international NGOs had 
deliberately soft-pedaled their opposition to the bill in an 
attempt to avoid antagonizing the government.  He lamented 
the fact that the local NGOs had not been equally diplomatic. 
 
4.  (C) Angelo said the best prospect for changes to the bill 
was the GOZ,s interest  in complying with UN and other 
international obligations (or at least appearing to do so). 
The regime might therefore try to address some of the UN's 
objections.  However, the regime saw this issue through the 
prism of national security and was unlikely to agree to any 
changes that would compromise their ability to crack down on 
political opposition. 
 
5.  (C) Angelo said his office was trying other ways to 
facilitate progress on the bill.  For instance, he was 
encouraging NGOs to offer to regulate themselves in an effort 
to show they were open to the need to better govern the 
sector.  He said  a similar offer from donors to create a 
code of conduct to govern their activities would be well 
received by the government.  In that regard, he noted that 
SADC member embassies had rebuffed his efforts to arrange a 
meeting with donors to discuss the NGO bill.  Many shared the 
GOZ's belief that some of the NGOs were opposition elements 
bent on regime change and, hence, legitimate targets for the 
government.  (N.B. The Canadian Embassy reportedly has voiced 
concern over the bill to the GOZ and that the EU has received 
instructions to deliver a demarche on the matter.  We plan to 
raise U.S. objections during the Ambassador's introductory 
meetings.) 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Parliamentary Hearing, Public Opposition 
---------------------------------------- 
 
6.  (U) The September 7 Parliamentary hearing, hosted the 
Portfolio Committee for Public Service, Labor and Social 
Welfare, was open to the public.  Participants at the hearing 
ranged from social service and human rights organization to 
development trusts, trade unions, churches and 
community-based groups.  Most of the NGOs present voiced 
objections to stringent annual registration requirements with 
no allowances for organizations already registered and to 
excessive government influence over the proposed NGO Council. 
 
7.  (C ) A number of NGOs also raised concern over the 
prohibition on foreign funding, which could severely curtail 
many NGOs operations.  They noted that the Zimbabwe economy 
benefited significantly from foreign funding of NGOs and 
prohibiting such funding would retard Zimbabwe's economic 
recovery.  Several participants said the NGO Bill violated 
the Zimbabwe Constitution as well as Zimbabwe's international 
obligations.  International NGOs, such as CARE and Catholic 
Relief Service, attended the hearing but did not make 
presentations.  Stephen Gwynne-Vaughn of CARE said his 
organization had concerns about how the bill would effect 
their operations but had deliberately kept a low profile at 
the hearing. 
 
------------------- 
Latest Developments 
------------------- 
 
8.  (SBU) On September 15, USAID attended a UN organized 
meeting with donors and democracy and human rights NGOs, 
local and international, to further discuss the bill and its 
potential impact.  There was a strong current of defiance, 
especially on the part of the local NGOs, and it was clear 
that all of the NGOs were making alternative plans, such as 
relocating offshore or restructuring and realigning 
themselves with organized labor, churches, or private 
companies that would not be subject to the bill's provisions. 
 International NGOs concluded that while they might not be 
the current targets of the legislation, they would be 
vulnerable.  UNDP representatives reported that they were 
hoping to have another meeting with the GOZ soon to further 
discuss amending the draft legislation, as well as the 
possibility of NGO self-regulation and a donor "code of 
conduct." 
 
-------- 
Comment: 
-------- 
 
9. (C) Sources close to Parliament have told us that the 
Legal Committee (PLC), which evaluates the constitutionality 
of proposed legislation, would probably begin consideration 
of the NGO Bill soon after Parliament reconvenes October 5. 
Our expectation is that despite UN efforts and public 
opposition the bill is likely to pass in something akin to 
its current form.  The government may care about its 
international reputation but not as much as it does about 
controlling the opposition in the run-up to the March 
elections.  Implementation may prove another matter, but once 
the bill passes, we expect some high-profile NGOs closely 
linked with the political opposition be targeted quickly and 
relentlessly. 
 
10.  (C) On the bright side, the high turnout and open 
discussion at the public hearing, and committee chairman 
Lazarus Dokora's receptivity to participants' contributions, 
argue for parliament's growing maturity as an institution. 
This would be an important development in the longer-term 
effort to promote genuine democracy in Zimbabwe. END COMMENT. 
 
Dell