EU flip flops on Zimbabwe

Phillipe Van Damme, the European Union ambassador to Zimbabwe, is probably less well known to Zimbabweans than that other Van Damme - Jean Claude. But what we know about the later is that if he says that he as going to clobber you, he will do it.

With the diplomatic Van Damme and his ilk on the other hand, you can never be sure what they are going to do, even if they say so.

Now they are talking about how Zimbabwe should fix its "economic framework and political field as well as the rule of law" as pre-conditions for smooth re-engagement - yet it was their own releasing of the choke-hold which emboldened Zanu-PF to ignore the reform agenda.

They continued to re-engage Zanu-PF and even making promises of aid, even after the junta stole the 2013 election, or - if you say there is no proof - after they refused to carry out a transparent election with monitors from all respected institutions, smacked of hypocrisy then, and the smell has still not gone away.

The EU itself was denied an opportunity to monitor the election and the AU never passed the election as free and fair. Now even in diplomatic parlance, the diplomatic Van Damme's saying that the EU "appreciates" the willingness shown by Zimbabwe to re-engage with Europe" can only come under the category of speaking with a forked tongue.

In the eight months that Mr Van Damme has been in Zimbabwe we have witnessed a tightening of the military's control over civic affairs, a refusal to implement the Constitution whose adoption ironically triggered the diplomatic thaw, the illegal removal of a vice-President and other Ministers, the abduction of a human rights activist, now feared dead, and last week promotion of violence and abuse of traditional leaders to prop up Zanu-PF's political fortunes.

If the EU wants to showcase its humanitarian work in Zimbabwe, bandaging the wounds of a society battered by repression, then they should just do so without pretending that it is in any way linked it diplomatic engagement as a result of some positive moves by the regime.

Expressions of concerns regarding the Zanu-PF government's behaviour as a world citizen should be made based on some universal standards e.g. holding of free and fair elections, a free environment for democratic expression, a free media, no corruption, or at least moves towards eliminating it - now of which we have seen in Zimbabwe.

Only last week the government announced that Telecel equipment would be taken down unless they sold shares to its cronies who are lining up to further line their pockets - how does Mr Van Damme square that with implementation of an economic reform agenda?

He says the EU is receiving mixed messages on the economy. There is nothing mixed about Zanu-PF signals, because this is what Zanu-PF has been doing throughout and at every turn when given the opportunity they will corruptly default to opaque indigenisation.

Mr Van Damme's advice concerning the economic challenges that Zimbabwe is facing, falls on deaf Zanu-PF ears, as it has been doing since before Mr Van Damme came to Zimbabwe - so the government cannot and will not attract foreign investors, nor will it encourage domestic investors with the ongoing policies, nor will it take advice to end the corrupt clientelism.

Nor must Mr Van Damme even try to pretend that the EU is concerned about the abduction of Itai Dzamara, because this is one issue that clearly challenges everything the EU stands for - respect for human rights, including the right to life and democratic expression - both of which were taken away from Itai.

There is also an eruption of political violence in Hurungwe because Zanu-PF has taken the position that it will retain power by any means necessary, including violations of human rights and denial of constitutional rule.

It is a deliberate strategy to rule Zimbabwe by repression including non-implementation of the very Constitution whose passing the EU said was a sign that Zimbabwe was embarking on the path to reform.