News / National
Norway denies regime change agenda
24 Mar 2014 at 14:52hrs | Views
The Scandinavian country of Norway discovered crude oil reserves in the mid-80s and since then, its economy has boomed.
Norway went on to establish a Sovereign Wealth Fund whose savings value has grown into billions. Richard Chidza (RC) caught up with Bard Hopland (BH), Norway's ambassador to Zimbabwe and below are excerpts of their chat:
RC: Where do we find Norway in terms of Zimbabwe's development trajectory?
BH: We trace our relationships with Zimbabwe back to the days before the liberation struggle in which we assisted a lot in the war effort. We have, over the years, continued to support Zimbabwe.
It has, like any other relationship, been affected by different political changes and situations. But the bottom line is that we have always stood in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe.
RC: Given that Norway has watched Zimbabwe grow as it were, how would you now rate Zimbabwe's transition towards a democratic developmental state?
BH: There are areas that require attention, but that is for citizens of this country to try and address. We relate to the government of the day and we take it as a given that there is a Zanu PF government in place. Our hope is that we will be able to continue to engage with them.
We continue to be constructive, both in support and criticism of the government's activities.
RC: How active is Norway in Zimbabwe's human rights arena?
BH: We are focused mainly on access to justice for (the) marginalised groups such as women, children and the disabled, as well as access to information.
We are involved in media diversity because we believe that this is very important for democracy. We support the establishment of a free media and as well as render support to the Human Rights Commission to make sure that individual and collective rights are upheld.
RC: The support you are talking about, is it fair to classify such (support) as aimed at effecting regime change in Zimbabwe?
BH: No, not at all; it is not our area. lt is our firm belief that that is an area for citizens, and they are solely responsible for electing and removing political leadership as and when they so wish, or have the opportunity to do so.
RC: What would you identify as Zimbabwe's black spot over the years?
BH: We view governance as a contract between the people and those in power. In order for society to function to its full capacity, government requires buy-in from the populace for its policies to be successful.
Citizens need to feel that there is an understanding as well as loyalty to the ethos that define the people without coercion. Norway, despite its rich oil reserves, has identified its human resource base as its biggest resource – measured at 80% of the country's wealth – while the natural resources are believed to constitute four percent of the country's wealth.
That should be the case with Zimbabwe; human capital is important and people need to be happy for them to understand what government is doing and support such efforts.
RC: What can Zimbabwe learn from Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund initiative?
BH: The Sovereign Wealth Fund should be understood as an instrument for saving and not development or investment vehicle, but the establishment of mechanisms to set it up should never be tied to the needs of today.
It took Norway six years to begin to make savings and I think it will be the same for Zimbabwe. There is always a gap between the establishment and the beginning of savings. I also think Zimbabwe has greater need for funding in areas such as reconstruction than the need to save.
There is also the need to service (both) its external and internal debt. However, it is important that you have begun to talk about it. It is good that you realise that you need to save for future generations because these resources will not be there forever.
Two weeks ago, we also had an expert invited by the Zimbabwean government to provide a synopsis of our experiences and what Zimbabwe can learn. We met the officials from the president's office as well as the minister of Finance (Patrick Chinamasa), and it is up to them to take up what we gave them.
He also addressed Parliament and we also took time to raise our concerns with different issues.
RC: In your discussions, did the indigenisation policy come up?
BH: True, we are of the opinion that Zimbabwe is going about the indigenisation agenda the difficult way. We allowed oil companies to flourish but took control of the profits. Zimbabwe wants to control the companies and I think it is not an easy thing.
RC: You are also assisting with humanitarian aid in Zimbabwe?
BH: There is a lot of competition for international donor funding but we have channelled funds through the World Bank as well as other multi-lateral institutions such as the World Food Programme to alleviate hunger.
Norway last year was the 11th biggest contributor to the trusts that have assisted this country financially towards its humanitarian needs. There is need in Syria and South Sudan, and we always look at areas where the need is greater.
RC: What is your view of relations between Zimbabwe and the European Union (EU)?
BH: Norway is not a member of the EU and has twice in the past - in 1972 and 1984 - voted against membership, so we (have) got a clearer view of things.
As issues stand between Zimbabwe and the EU, we are of the opinion that Zimbabwe needs to engage, and engage more with all people; and the removal of sanctions is a good sign and a chance to normalisation that should never be missed. Norway is also looking at our relations and development assistance with a view to resuming direct bilateral assistance to Zimbabwe.
RC: So, where do you see Zimbabwe in the next 10 years?
BH: In 10 years, Zimbabwe has a chance to bounce back and take its place in the community of nations. This is a rich country with a very good human resource base as well as strong institutions.
So, this country has what it takes to be a major economic (and) socio-political player in the region and beyond. Norway will remain a partner and Zimbabwe can learn from us but should never aspire to be Norway.
Norway went on to establish a Sovereign Wealth Fund whose savings value has grown into billions. Richard Chidza (RC) caught up with Bard Hopland (BH), Norway's ambassador to Zimbabwe and below are excerpts of their chat:
RC: Where do we find Norway in terms of Zimbabwe's development trajectory?
BH: We trace our relationships with Zimbabwe back to the days before the liberation struggle in which we assisted a lot in the war effort. We have, over the years, continued to support Zimbabwe.
It has, like any other relationship, been affected by different political changes and situations. But the bottom line is that we have always stood in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe.
RC: Given that Norway has watched Zimbabwe grow as it were, how would you now rate Zimbabwe's transition towards a democratic developmental state?
BH: There are areas that require attention, but that is for citizens of this country to try and address. We relate to the government of the day and we take it as a given that there is a Zanu PF government in place. Our hope is that we will be able to continue to engage with them.
We continue to be constructive, both in support and criticism of the government's activities.
RC: How active is Norway in Zimbabwe's human rights arena?
BH: We are focused mainly on access to justice for (the) marginalised groups such as women, children and the disabled, as well as access to information.
We are involved in media diversity because we believe that this is very important for democracy. We support the establishment of a free media and as well as render support to the Human Rights Commission to make sure that individual and collective rights are upheld.
RC: The support you are talking about, is it fair to classify such (support) as aimed at effecting regime change in Zimbabwe?
BH: No, not at all; it is not our area. lt is our firm belief that that is an area for citizens, and they are solely responsible for electing and removing political leadership as and when they so wish, or have the opportunity to do so.
RC: What would you identify as Zimbabwe's black spot over the years?
BH: We view governance as a contract between the people and those in power. In order for society to function to its full capacity, government requires buy-in from the populace for its policies to be successful.
Citizens need to feel that there is an understanding as well as loyalty to the ethos that define the people without coercion. Norway, despite its rich oil reserves, has identified its human resource base as its biggest resource – measured at 80% of the country's wealth – while the natural resources are believed to constitute four percent of the country's wealth.
That should be the case with Zimbabwe; human capital is important and people need to be happy for them to understand what government is doing and support such efforts.
BH: The Sovereign Wealth Fund should be understood as an instrument for saving and not development or investment vehicle, but the establishment of mechanisms to set it up should never be tied to the needs of today.
It took Norway six years to begin to make savings and I think it will be the same for Zimbabwe. There is always a gap between the establishment and the beginning of savings. I also think Zimbabwe has greater need for funding in areas such as reconstruction than the need to save.
There is also the need to service (both) its external and internal debt. However, it is important that you have begun to talk about it. It is good that you realise that you need to save for future generations because these resources will not be there forever.
Two weeks ago, we also had an expert invited by the Zimbabwean government to provide a synopsis of our experiences and what Zimbabwe can learn. We met the officials from the president's office as well as the minister of Finance (Patrick Chinamasa), and it is up to them to take up what we gave them.
He also addressed Parliament and we also took time to raise our concerns with different issues.
RC: In your discussions, did the indigenisation policy come up?
BH: True, we are of the opinion that Zimbabwe is going about the indigenisation agenda the difficult way. We allowed oil companies to flourish but took control of the profits. Zimbabwe wants to control the companies and I think it is not an easy thing.
RC: You are also assisting with humanitarian aid in Zimbabwe?
BH: There is a lot of competition for international donor funding but we have channelled funds through the World Bank as well as other multi-lateral institutions such as the World Food Programme to alleviate hunger.
Norway last year was the 11th biggest contributor to the trusts that have assisted this country financially towards its humanitarian needs. There is need in Syria and South Sudan, and we always look at areas where the need is greater.
RC: What is your view of relations between Zimbabwe and the European Union (EU)?
BH: Norway is not a member of the EU and has twice in the past - in 1972 and 1984 - voted against membership, so we (have) got a clearer view of things.
As issues stand between Zimbabwe and the EU, we are of the opinion that Zimbabwe needs to engage, and engage more with all people; and the removal of sanctions is a good sign and a chance to normalisation that should never be missed. Norway is also looking at our relations and development assistance with a view to resuming direct bilateral assistance to Zimbabwe.
RC: So, where do you see Zimbabwe in the next 10 years?
BH: In 10 years, Zimbabwe has a chance to bounce back and take its place in the community of nations. This is a rich country with a very good human resource base as well as strong institutions.
So, this country has what it takes to be a major economic (and) socio-political player in the region and beyond. Norway will remain a partner and Zimbabwe can learn from us but should never aspire to be Norway.
Source - zimmail
