US embassy cable - 03HARARE1476

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 001476 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/PDPA FOR DALTON, MITCHELL AND SIMS 
IRAQ PD FOR SMITH, PINESS AND ROOKARD 
NSC FOR JENDAYI FRAZER 
LONDON FOR GURNEY 
PARIS FOR NEARY 
NAIROBI FOR PFLAUMER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL, KPAO, KMDR, ZI 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION U. S. FOREIGN POLICY, BUSH'S VISIT 
TO AFRICA AND IRAQ; HARARE 
 
  1.   The July 20 editions of the two 
      government-controlled weeklies - "The Sunday Mail" 
      and the "Sunday News" - carried lengthy articles 
      centering on United States foreign policy, President 
      George W. Bush's visit to Africa, and another urging 
      the United States to look to the United Nations for 
      a new resolution on Iraq.  Excerpts follow: 
 
  2.   Under headline "U. S., British definition of democracy 
      warped," the "Sunday Mail" printed the following opinion 
      piece by Munyaradzi Mugowo in which he argues: 
 
      ". . .(President George W.) Bush and (Prime 
      Minister) Tony Blair's arrogation that the 
      Zimbabwean government has defied all democratic 
      norms is a statement that is both strange and lousy 
      seen in the light of the crisis of definition that 
      it unwarrantedly presents to the political 
      discourse.  This definitional bigotry is deliberate 
      and functions on probabilistic logic, to further the 
      hidden foreign policy agendas of these world 
      bullies. . .It  sounds absolutely awkward to define 
      as dictatorship and gross misrule, the Zimbabwean 
      government's opposition to U. S. habit of using 
      economic power to impose unjust policies as well to 
      manipulate the notion of political pluralism as an 
      excuse for craftily assisting the political 
      ascendancy of the opposition MDC (Movement for 
      Democratic Change). . .The view which the Americans 
      have of themselves as selfless humanitarians is a 
      mystification of their double standards which thrive 
      on their habit of deceitfully sacralizing (sic) non- 
      universal ideologies abstracted from a value system 
      peculiar to them which they globalize as a general 
      convention of good governance, in an effort to 
      mobilize overwhelming support, even from victims, 
      for their own self-interests pursuits.  In view of 
      this, the voices of Bush and Powell, though feigning 
      a moral concern with the plight and welfare of `good 
      Zimbabweans' through honeyed words, baseless claims 
      and allegations which are nonetheless a clumsily 
      prepared salad of hatred of President Mugabe, myths 
      about the country and a string of libertarian 
      voodoos, not only set the tone, but also make an 
      upward adjustment to the volume of the Anglo-U. S. 
      foreign policy crusades in Southern Africa.  On a 
      global scale, recent world events have plainly shown 
      that the U. S. has literally turned Washington into 
      an informal capital of the world, and Washington's 
      policies, doctrines and decrees, into more or less 
      sacrosanct prototypes upon which a world order 
      closely coterminous with any corpus of the U. S. 
      overseas commerce has been modeled. . .For reasons 
      much less moral than its claims, the U. S. has 
      solemnly sworn to patronize the system on the globe, 
      ousting alleged `dictators,' birthing and baby- 
      sitting infant Third World democracies, and raising 
      the `proper' way, weaned ones which have already 
      been engrafted into the U. S.-led `global village' 
      as its faithful satellites. . . ." 
 
 
  3.   Under headline "Mbeki's diplomatic skills convinced 
      Bush," Bulawayo-based Chief Reporter, Hebert 
      Zharare, wrote the following op-ed in which he 
      asserts: 
 
      "Fears of being branded a racist, and President 
      Thabo Mbeki's diplomatic skills, were instrumental 
      in U. S. President George W. Bush's change of stance 
      on Zimbabwe after meeting the South African leader 
      two weeks ago. . .Mr. Bush surprised many, 
      particularly the opposition MDC (Movement for 
      Democratic Change), when he said he was of `one 
      mind' with President Mbeki on the issue of Zimbabwe. 
      The MDC expected Mr. Bush to intimidate President 
      Mbeki to change his `quiet diplomacy' approach 
      towards Harare and renew calls for the ouster of 
      President Mugabe.  However, it was Mr. Bush who came 
      out of the meeting singing a different tune. . .The 
      American leader's divide and rule tactics of 
      dangling incentives to Zimbabwe's neighbors in a 
      ploy to coerce them to support his anti-Zimbabwe 
      call failed as the African leaders reaffirmed their 
      previous statements that Zimbabwean problems cannot 
      be solved by foreigners. . . ." 
 
  4.   Under headline "Will the U. N. bail out George 
      W. Bush?" the "Sunday News" carried the following 
      feature article by Jim Lobe in which he states: 
 
      "Make no mistake: U. S. President George W. Bush is 
      in big trouble.  Whereas a week ago, Americans were 
      talking about the dreaded `V' word - for Vietnam - 
      this week the dreaded `W' word - for Watergate - was 
      back in vogue, even as the `V' word was still in 
      use.  Watergate plus Vietnam is about the worst 
      combination for a sitting president that anyone 
      could possibly imagine.  And the almost daily 
      announcement on the news that another U. S. soldier 
      has been killed in an attack in Iraq. . .recalls 
      nothing so much as the daily reminders on the 
      evening news 23 years ago that killed the presidency 
      of Jimmy Carter. . .Short of a miracle - such as the 
      discovery of a cache of weapons of mass 
      destruction. . .or the return of robust U. S. 
      economic growth that can quickly bring the 
      unemployment rate down to five percent - there is 
      probably only one way that Bush can save his 
      presidency at this point.  But the cost in personal 
      pride and policy will be extremely high.  To save 
      his administration, Bush must now essentially 
      abandon the aggressive unilateralism (sic) that has 
      dominated his foreign policy since even before 11 
      September 2001; ask forgiveness from U. S. allies 
      who refused to join his `coalition of the willing' 
      in Iraq; and return to the United Nations Security 
      Council for a new resolution that will give the 
      world body control over the occupation. . . ." 
 
SULLIVAN