US embassy cable - 04HARARE2046

C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 002046 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AF/S FOR BNEULING 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE, D. TEITELBAUM 
PARIS FOR C. NEARY 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2009 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PREL, ZI, Parliamentary Affairs, U.S.-Zimbabwe Bilateral Relations 
SUBJECT: GOZ REACTS STRONGLY TO US STATEMENT ON NGO BILL 
 
REF: HARARE 2003 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Christopher W. Dell under Section 1.4 b/d 
 
1. (U) On December 14, the government-run Herald newspaper 
prominently featured an op-ed piece, "US hypocrisy laid 
bare," attacking the USG for official statements on the NGO 
bill recently passed in Parliament (reftel).  The feature 
asserted that the USG reaction was consistent with its &hard 
and punishing stance on Zimbabwe.8  The article, which 
accurately quoted from the Department's statement last week 
on the bill, equated the NGO bill with the Patriot Act. 
 
2. (U) According to the Herald, USG criticism of the &same 
piece of legislation8 as the Patriot Act was tantamount to 
an admission that that it was working with NGOs to effect 
regime change in Zimbabwe and that the USG's real objection 
was that the NGO bill would stop the funding channel to do 
so.  The USG was trying to incite a popular uprising in order 
to be able to cite political violence when declaring the 
March 2005 Parliamentary elections not free and fair.  The 
piece cited a litany of purported evidence of prior USG 
support of regime change and closed with a local academic 
urging that Zimbabwe "stop paying attention to what the 
Americans say." 
 
3. (C) Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono on 
December 14 told the Ambassador that President Mugabe was 
unhappy that the US criticized the NGO bill so strongly. 
Gono said Mugabe had been considering sending the bill back 
to Parliament rather than signing it, a possibility Gono 
credited to his own analysis of the economic impact of the 
NGO bill, but that Mugabe felt that to do so after such 
strong criticism would give the appearance of bowing to 
pressure and compromising Zimbabwean sovereignty.  The 
Ambassador had responded that Mugabe could easily find a 
face-saving measure, such as sending the bill back to 
Parliament for &technical8 fixes and then letting it die on 
the vine. 
 
4. (C) COMMENT:  The GOZ appears at the highest levels to be 
paying close attention to our posture on Zimbabwe.  So much 
so, in fact, that the GOZ,s public reactions to our 
criticisms ensure that a wide audience will note them.  Odds 
are if the GOZ kept quiet, far fewer Zimbabweans would have 
been aware of our objections to the NGO bill.  This 
counter-productive prickliness in both public and private 
underscores the extent to which the regime's priority is on 
firmly reestablishing Mugabe's legitimacy and the GOZ,s 
credibility on the international stage.  The reaction to USG 
critcism shows both the importance of this leverage and the 
limits on its effectiveness.  It is a tool that we can wield 
to great effect but only by exercising restraint and using it 
sparingly to ensure maximum impact. 
DELL