Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-384"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.36.3-384"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am very happy to be able to share with you today, in this exchange of views, future prospects and thoughts on the part we could play in supporting all the efforts to find a solution to the crisis which will be accepted by all the main political stakeholders, and above all a solution that has a prospect of lasting and which can open up a new era of prosperity for a country and a people who need it so much.
For the moment, then, I think you know that this approach appears to be disputed. It is all the more complicated in that Mr Tsvangirai has expressed certain doubts as to whether the mediation is well balanced, and obviously wants to give this mediation a framework, a setting, support, let us say, which makes it possible to guarantee a balance. I am not making a value judgement in saying this, I am simply stating the situation. For the moment, Mr Ping has assured me that the work – I will not say the work of mediation, but the work – aimed at preparing minds for this development is under way, and that, all being well, it should be possible for a genuine prospect to open up in the next few days.
I then had quite a long talk with Mr Tsvangirai. He confirmed that he supported the idea of a government including members of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, but within which, of course, he would have the last word in appointing the people who would be part of it. Basically, although this is not how he put it, it is rather like the Kenyan scenario, even if (and I agree with this view) the two situations cannot be compared. They are not at all alike. People take advantage of the opportunity to behave as if they were identical, but, looked at completely objectively, and men and women are different, the situation is quite different. So this is the first point.
Secondly, he would like to see a ‘permanent negotiation team’, that is to say a team to lead the mediation, which should, of course, assure him of balance. Naturally he would like this team to be put under the aegis of the African Union and the United Nations, as the Minister stated. He seems to me to be reasonably optimistic – he believes that things are moving. Obviously he sees the issue of sanctions as relevant, and he emphasised something on which I think we are all agreed, namely that if there are sanctions, they must apply to individuals and must not, of course, affect the population either directly or indirectly.
I have the feeling that the African Union has completely got the measure of its responsibility, that it is actively involved, that is seeking a solution through mediation which at all events takes account, as the Minister emphasised, of this need to translate the result of the first round of voting into executive power, since this is the only result that bestows legitimacy on those who benefit from it.
Shortly before this sitting began, I was able to talk to Mr Ping, the President of the Commission of the African Union, and about half an hour ago I had quite a lengthy discussion with the opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai. So I have some fresh news, which obviously has not yet been definitely confirmed, but at last I can, perhaps, give you more detailed and more up-to-date information.
Firstly, of course, I should like to share with you my profound concern about the situation. I was extremely sorry, as I said publicly both before and after the event, that the second round of presidential elections did, as the Minister said, take place despite the many appeals from the international community, including, incidentally, appeals from Zimbabwe’s African partners, for it to be postponed. Naturally, the environment of extreme political violence and systematic intimidation tainted this election and deprived it of all legitimacy and credibility.
I have repeatedly said publicly, as has the Presidency of the European Union, that, in view of the conditions under which this second round took place, it is completely out of the question for any legitimacy to be accorded to the President who emerged from this ballot. It must be repeated again and again that it is a victory that was wrongfully won, and is very far from the spirit of democratic renaissance that animates Africa today. The African Union Summit that was held in Egypt and was attended by President Mugabe witnessed a very tense and passionate debate between African leaders, a debate that has been described by many as unprecedented.
The African Union resolution is critical of President Mugabe, and calls on him to seek a political agreement with Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), with a view to forming a government of national unity. Moreover, the African Union called on the SADC to continue its facilitation task, with a view to reaching political agreement. We could certainly regard this resolution as inadequate. In particular, we might criticise the fact that the African Union refrained from expressing a clear opinion on the legitimacy or otherwise of President Mugabe, but it has to be acknowledged that in the current circumstances, this resolution constitutes a substantial result. Of course, that is not the end of the matter. It is important for the African Union and the SADC to provide concrete evidence of their commitment to finding a political situation.
From this point of view, the European Union and other international players have made it clear what they expect to see. This political agreement can be concluded only on the basis of the results of the first round of voting, which reflected the opinion of the Zimbabwean people, freely and democratically expressed. The results of the second round of voting cannot be taken as the starting point for mediation, for negotiation. In other words, in our view the political solution will involve a coalition government led by Mr Tsvangirai as Prime Minister, endowed with the most extensive powers and, moreover, relying on the majority that he holds in Parliament.
As far as the European Union is concerned, all the options are still on the table. Firstly, we are prepared to support the efforts of the SADC and the African Union, and we expect to see tangible progress in the next two weeks.
If a constructive political agreement is reached reflecting the results of the first round of voting, we are, of course, prepared, as we have said, gradually to re-engage with Zimbabwe. Moreover, we are prepared to start immediately. I would remind you that when the programme for the tenth European Development Fund was being drawn up, I ensured that the work was done as if democracy had been restored in Zimbabwe, in order to avoid penalising the Zimbabwean people for the tragic situation in which they find themselves.
Now to the two conversations that I have just had this afternoon, with a view to the meeting I was to have with Parliament. First, the conversation with Mr Ping. What is the problem? The problem today is that everybody in the African Union agrees that they should support negotiation between Mr Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai, and that the basic principles should, of course, be that the government should be led by the leader of the opposition, Mr Tsvangirai, that this government is potentially to be based on a coalition, in which Mr Tsvangirai’s party, which is in the majority in Parliament, will of course have the dominant position, and that this government must have the fullest and most extensive powers as regards executive decisions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples