Work towards improved diplomatic relations on course
NEXT year Zimbabwe hosts the 22nd Nordic-Africa Foreign Ministers Meeting, something that would have been inconceivable a few years ago with even an invitation to the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister being somewhat dicey.
The annual meeting alternates between Scandinavian and African hosts. So the agreement at this year’s meeting, hosted by Denmark, that it was Zimbabwe’s turn next year, is a sign of the growing normality in our foreign relations.
Three of the Nordic countries — Denmark, Sweden and Finland — are members of the European Union which joined the US and Britain in the early 2000s in imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe and on leading Government members. So there is some extra signs of the normalising of relations.
The EU has, however, been active in restoring relations in recent years as the Second Republic moved rapidly in President Mnangagwa’s engagement and re-engagement policy. This re-engagement drive included improving relations with EU member states, as well as the bloc itself, and generally speaking almost all the bloc’s sanctions are now dead, except perhaps for arms sales but Zimbabwe is not asking to buy European arms so that has never been tested.
The Nordic countries have a reputation for taking a strong stand on human rights issues, sometimes misinterpreting events in other countries. In Zimbabwe they have been supportive of a swathe of programmes, often via well-organised voluntary organisations and sometimes through a specialist agency, but have never been one of the partners who try and influence politics.
So this latest Nordic-Africa decision is another step towards total normality and treating Zimbabwe as an “ordinary” country, which is what Zimbabwe desires. The decision also shows that the foreign ministers at the recent meeting in Denmark consider Zimbabwe to be a safe and secure country, with adequate resources such as hotels and meeting places for such a meeting.
Normal relations do not necessarily mean that there is, or ever will be, total agreement on all issues. No one expects or demands that, from either side. All countries work together where they can, and agree to disagree when there is divergence of views. Even close allies and good friends do not agree on every issue, but they do not get angry about disagreements.
The engagement and re-engagement drive has been centred on establishing and re-establishing normal and ordinary State relations. Obviously Zimbabwean diplomats will, like everyone else’s diplomats, explain the country’s views and see if they can persuade others to accept them, but the normality does not depend on such acceptance. Agreement is just a bonus.
Zimbabwe’s foreign policy, as enunciated by President Mnangagwa, is to be a friend to all and an enemy of none. This has largely been accepted now.
We do have views on actions and issues, sometimes strong views, but we look at each action and issue on its merits, rather than put each country onto some sort of box of friend or enemy. Our voting record at the United Nations and in other forums shows that, and even there we tend to vote almost all the time with our region and other African countries.
This steady diplomacy has been bearing ever increasing results and gaining Zimbabwe general acceptance. Even our relations with Britain, once fairly close to rock bottom, are now in reasonable shape. At least we are talking and listening to each other, rather than growling and snarling, and that is a serious advance towards the normality that we seek.
The other emphasis in our diplomacy is on trade. But reasonable relations with major and potential trading partners is a very useful starting point when business people need to connect, and when investors want to come to Zimbabwe. Businesses might feel some trade is a bit risky and investors might be worried about security if their country is unfriendly towards Zimbabwe.
Some of the sanctions definitely affected trade, since many banks were worried that they might inadvertently fall foul of, especially US sanctions. While detailed investigations would end the risk, the cost of such investigations was often well in excess of the fees that could be earned, so the simpler solution was to just cross Zimbabwe off the list.
So the engagement diplomacy and the trade diplomacy are interrelated; they are strands of the same general policy and both need to be emphasised. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has been doing this fairly solidly for almost six years now, and every month usually brings up another success.
It is simply solid work done properly, and with the full backing and necessary intervention of the President and the Government as a whole. Generally most of the problems have either been resolved, or extensively ameliorated, and Zimbabwe is continually moving towards the normal status that we all want.