Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Q&A: US Ambassador Charles Ray on US-Zim relations

COMMENT - Whenever the US is cozying up to Zimbabwe, it is not because they re-discovered their democratic roots. They are still run by the same Anglo-American De Beers interested that want Zimbabwe's diamond fields. Therefore, Operation Shumba (source: Center on American and Global Security (CAGS), at the University of Indiana) is about exploiting division among ZANU-PF. They have been trying to bribe Zimbabwean officials (a crime in the US, by the way), and failed. And now RBZ governor Gideon Gono is making anti-indigenisation noises. I would say they have gotten to him, and that is why they are optimistic enough to change their public stance. This is Libya all over again.

Q&A: US Ambassador Charles Ray on US-Zim relations
Posted by By Our reporter at 2 August, at 07 : 12 AM Print

THIS is a transcript of discussion on the “The Future of U.S.- Zimbabwe Relations” held on Thursday July 28th 2011 in Harare, Zimbabwe. The discussion was organized by the SAPES Trust, a regional think-tank.

Full Transcript

DR. IBBO MANDAZA (MODERATOR): I see we have a huge crowd today, I think when the secretary sent the first notice, it said Ray Charles (laughter)

AMBASSADOR CHARLES RAY (AMBASSADOR RAY): Sorry, no songs tonight (laughter)

MODERATOR: Well, a very rich statement, and we have forty minutes of discussion, let’s disagree but let’s not be disagreeable.

QUESTION: Your Excellency, thank you very much for the insightful presentation.

MODERATOR: Your name sir?

QUESTION: My name is Peter (Laughter). You have talked about a mature democracy that has espoused America for the past centuries, and you talk about Zimbabwe having established some of the democratic institutions and some of them are not yet mature. Are you looking at the time span that American democracies have matured over three centuries and Zimbabwe has only over decades? And would you want Zimbabwe’s democracy to be espoused the same as those that have been experienced over three centuries versus three decades, that’s my first question.

My second question, you have also talked about mutual respect and mutual understanding. It does seem from my reading and from what I see from the televisions that most of the Western diplomats when they talk about Zimbabwe they seem to browse conflict rather than diplomacy. How do you react to that?

Your Excellency, my last question is, I am a student of history, and reading across history I came across a military leadership book FM100, a U.S. military book, it has got this statement, it says, “a true professional military man in the U.S. means serving and defending American constitution and that which the values, interests and national vision that was declared at independence,” and I thought that at independence that was in 1774, and if American military men are still defending the vision, the interest and the values that were espoused three centuries ago, what’s wrong with Third World countries defending visions and interests that were espoused decades back?

This is there in this book, your Excellency, I say is this, should this be viewed as dabbling in politics, or if people talk about patriotism and loyalty as espoused in this military leadership book that directs the military men of your country, should it also be viewed as dabbling in politics? Or it’s being, it’s exercising, these men and women defending their rights that they declared at independence like the United States of America, I thank you.


QUESTION: Thank you mister chairman, my name is Tafadzwa Musarara. I am the secretary of the Affirmative Action Group. I just want to make a few comments. To start with Your Excellency, your comments and presentation was very refreshing. I see a substantive climb-down from the statements that have come from your predecessors. I just want to touch on the issue of sanctions your Excellency. This year, we sent a delegation to America to meet our members – the Zimbabweans in the Diaspora- and one thing that came out on the effect of sanctions to Zimbabweans in the Diaspora is the reputational risk that they bear.

I am fully aware that the ZDERA act has not yet been activated, but the reputation risk that occurs affecting some of our Zimbabweans there, goes to the extent that some by virtue of their nationality which is negative in terms of image are failing to progress, are failing to get even promotions or the jobs that they want because they are coming from Zimbabwe.

The other issue your Excellency goes a little legal. We understand that the United Nations has got the sole mandate to impose sanctions on any country that causes a security risk to the stability of the global order.

We also understand that Chester Crocker the former U.S. Assistant Secretary addressing the Senate said, “in order to make the people of Zimbabwe separate from Zanu PF we should make their economy scream and I hope you leaders here, you senators here have the stomach to what you are about to do.” This gives us the insight of the intentions of the American congress about the legislators when they were coming up with the issues of sanctions.

The issues of sanctions have not affected the 120 people because they can still continue to go to Mauritius, to Malaysia, to America for treatment, but our own mothers and grandmothers in the rural areas cannot access even a painkiller. Do you think going forward, your Excellency, are these sanctions still relevant given that they have lost, in terms of their precision in targeting the 120 people because none of these 120 people have been declared bankrupt, they still remain powerful… politically and economically.

The other question your Excellency is that I understand that Fox News on the 18th of June reported that the American government is now negotiating with the Taliban, and we understand that you lost quite a lot of men and billions of dollars in terms of artillery in fighting the Taliban. Here you have never lost any one of your staffers. We are yet to know of any American who has been killed by the Zanu PF government but you still remain intransigent in terms of going forward, ah well I take that back (laughter). I just want to know going forward are you going to engage in a manner that is not consistent, or in a manner that does not indicate a bit of territorial or as people who want to interact with the domestic affairs.

Last one your Excellency, can you tell us about Operation Shumba? Wikileaks, Operation Shumba in the WikiLeaks is telling us that your government or your team at the White House were coming up with possibilities that President Mugabe was going to die in Senegal and another faction of Zanu PF was going to take over, another one was going to fight, this is within the content of the WikiLeaks- this is on the internet, I can show you your Excellency if you really want.

MODERATOR: One more…

QUESTION: My name is Angela, better known as Professor Patel’s daughter, but I prefer Angela Patel. I just have a question about, from my very inexperienced perspective, I am a law student, diplomatic relations being successful, strong and effective and in order to establish a relationship between nations that is sustainable and solid ultimately, in my inexperienced perspective, depends on each nation needing the other nation, and I think it is clear that Zimbabwe does need America, but I wonder if and how now America needs Zimbabwe and as a result that leads me to question whether a sustainable diplomatic relation is really feasible.

AMBASSADOR RAY: …I make it a point when I am talking with colleagues in Washington who quite often bureaucratically, because you have to, I don’t know if you have worked in a bureaucracy, but bureaucrats and politicians develop an internal clock based on their terms of office not on reality and I am often reminding people that it is unrealistic to expect a country to do in ten years what some countries have been doing, and by the way it is 235 years not 300, we are not that old (laughter). So no! And I don’t think anyone in his right mind realistically expects Zimbabwe or any other country to have reached in decades what other countries have taken centuries to reach. I would quibble a little with your calling us a matured democracy; I prefer calling the U.S. a maturing democratic work in progress. We still have a long way to go in terms of strengthening and building some of our democratic institutions.

Mutual respect and understanding, I tried to write down your question as you were asking it, I don’t think that without having mutual respect and understanding we can really take the relationship the way it needs to be. I would be the first to acknowledge and I said so in my remarks, if you recall, that we spent a lot of time over the last decade or so talking at and about each other and not to each other. That’s not the way I operate, if I did things like that my grandmother would come out of her grave and smack me right outside the head. I believe in approaching everyone regardless of whether I agree with them or not in a respectful way and I try to talk about issues, I don’t engage in name calling or blaming. It does not matter who is at fault, if something is broke, try to fix it.

FM100, I am quite familiar with that, I spent twenty years in uniform, I have read FM100 a lot of times, and you are right FM100 does say in fact say that military personnel take the oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. You left out a part though. We also have in the U.S. military a document called the Uniformed Code of Military Justice which levies severe penalties on military personnel who get outside their professional lines (laughter). So, you have to take those documents together, you cannot quote one document and say that’s the U.S. military.

We have had a lot of military people in politics after they got out of uniform. So there is no contradiction there. And there is never been a prohibition nor do we ever say military people don’t have a right to political views like any other citizens. Military people have a right to hold whatever political views, and believe me, in the 20 years in the army that I spent you wouldn’t believe some of the political views I encountered in private conversations. Our laws and regulations, though, prohibit them from expressing those political views in the context of their professional oath bound duties. And it was 1775 not 1774, just to clear up dates, I remember numbers I don’t remember names too well.

Second question, again, very long question, I will try to give short answers, and I will answer the last one first. I don’t comment on Wikileaks cable, I have no knowledge of Operation Shumba, and from what you are saying that is a historical thing, since I can’t live in the past there is no much point in cluttering my head up on something that is old and unimplemented.

You know I try to avoid using loaded words when I speak, the term climb-down, I didn’t climb-up to anything so I didn’t have to climb-down (laughter) on anything. I came in on a pretty level basis. You also have to keep in mind that my predecessors worked for a different president so when you make comparisons don’t try to squeeze me in a box.

The question of legality of our policies, I don’t even like to use some terms, you hear the term sovereignty thrown about; nations have a right to make laws that they feel are suitable or appropriate to them. The fact that the UN doesn’t sign onto something, if you look at how the UN works it’s hard to get the UN to sign on to anything except anodyne vanilla statements and I am not besmirching the UN, I am very much supportive of the UN as an organization and if it did not exist we would have to create it. But that does not invalidate a country’s legal system or legal decisions it makes.

And as to us negotiating with the Taliban that‘s a little far from my pit patch and I don’t get too involved in it. But I have to say if you are using Fox News as your source, we need to talk (laughter). I will refer you to a study that was done last year that show that people in the U.S. who rely on Fox News as their source are the most uninformed people in the United States (laughter)… better to watch Jon Stewart, it’s a little more critical.

The comment on diplomatic relations, while priorities might vary, we really all need each other in a globalised world. Some countries may be richer than others, some have bigger armies or have larger GDPs, but the fact is that in today’s world that is so globalised where movements of people, movements of certain diseases, movements of plant pests, you name it, piracy crosses boarders so easily that having even a small country that is not functioning to its capacity poses sometimes indirect or sometimes long-range threat to others.

And so you say Zimbabwe needs us, in a sense, the U.S. also needs Zimbabwe, southern Africa is a trading partner, a Zimbabwe whose economy is not functioning well has a negative impact on its neighbors which has a concomitant negative impact on us. Certain things you do because they are right. If you see people suffering, you try to do something to help to ease the suffering. So that is the basis for relations, mutual respect that we all have to live in an increasingly compact world where, I will tell you a story to illustrate it.

Last year I had a visit from an agricultural expert who mentioned that somewhere near Mutare they had found a plant pest that was migrating South and East and their concern was that if it migrated south and migrated into South Africa it would impact on South African grain and other plants that were shipped to the U.S. and would directly affect the health and security of U.S. consumers…this pest, it’s size is not the issue. But the point is having a global world where all countries are able to develop to their fullest potential and to live peacefully and productively, to me that is a good basis for diplomatic relations- mutual respect.


MODERATOR: Anyone on the left…yes Jeniffer

QUESTION: We are underrepresented

AMBASSADOR RAY: My wife counts for five (laughter). She is not an intimidating woman (laughter)

QUESTION: I work in environment and conflict and human rights. My question is really about how you see the development of Africom in Africa and how Zimbabwe fits into that. My understanding is that this is an area of growing American interest, the part of, I have colleagues working in the Wilson Woodrow Institute in Washington DC, part of their work also shows a growing concern around issues of poverty, terrorism, rising instability in the horn of Africa, so I just really want to know what your thoughts around Africom and how Zimbabwe fits into that particular strategy and the challenges of poverty and conflict?

QUESTION: I wanted to ask your Excellency, I know you said that operation Shumba was in the past, but I wanted your Excellency to know that every political position that the MDC- T has taken in the inclusive government is well explained in Operation Shumba. Everything! And also I wanted your Excellency to know that it was actually Susan Rice who held a breakfast meeting with (Prime Minister) Morgan Tsvangirai and the national chairman and gave her (sic) instructions in a meeting attended by Tom McDonald, deputy chief of mission- the note-taker- and a Mr. Polaf. At that meeting Susan Rice gave her instructions to enter into the government of national unity.

And at that same meeting she also told Morgan Tsvangirai that you should find a workable group of Zimbabweans in Zanu PF so that you could form a coalition as a first step in getting power. Now Operation Shumba talks about the coalition between the MDC-T and liberal elements in Zanu PF and it specifically says that Africom’ commands is the one that is going to be used to attack our country.

So whilst you are talking about peace and engagement, the United States of America on December 14th 2007, the White House Council gave written instructions to a team led by David Fiedler, professor of law, to do a scenario planning about attacking our country, and in that scenario planning they are talking about how to change the security services, the police services, the independent commissions and everything the MDC-T is asking for is in that Operation Shumba. Would the Ambassador not tell us here whether it is true that the MDC-T is sponsored by the American government through the Embassy in Harare? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR RAY: …I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and I was involved with the staffing and creation and mission planning for Africom. I am not familiar with any Operation Shumba. I can tell you that Africom’s original mandate had nothing to do with conducting combat operations. And if you take the time to find their man in charge you will see why they can’t. They don’t have any forces. Africom was created as a unique military geographic command to address non-military issues such as disease, piracy and other developmental issues. A huge portion of that command, unlike all of our other military commands, is in fact civilian coming from USAID and the State Department. And so, I would say unless there was a cell of people hidden in the sub-basement in the Pentagon where I was not allowed to go there was no such plan for Africom. You can’t attack a country when you don’t have an army to attack with. Staffs don’t attack.

And as for MDC-T being a creation or being supported by the U.S. government through the Embassy, I will speak for my stewardship of the Embassy since 2009 that isn’t true. And if you go back and read some of the stuff that comes out in your own state media you would question it because I have seen three or four different interpretations of who created MDC and I am not sure who to believe. But I stand with what I said in my remarks. We do not support or oppose any specific political party, we oppose perversion of the political process and we support an inclusive open process that reflects and respects the will of the people.

MODERATOR: Operation Shumba yafa (laughter)

QUESTION: Mine is a tiny question I think coming after Operation Shumba. I am Showers Mahowa, I am from the University of KwaZulu Natal but I am also working with the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development. I have got two questions. The first one is, I understand that the United States is the third or fourth biggest bilateral creditor to Zimbabwe. Is there any scope for debt relief within the re-engagement strategy either at present or in the future? That’s number one.

Then number two, there are some in the debt campaign who are advocating for a debt audit as a way not to reconcile the debt but to also ascertain which of the debt might be odious or even illegitimate as grounds for non-enforcement of such kind of debts, would you support such a process? Thank you.

QUESTION: … to have such an open even though carefully worded (laughter) statement from the American ambassador. Of course, we all know that he is a military man, he is diplomat, he is an author and a poet, so in a sense the diplomacy that he is articulating probably is like diplomatic poetry. One needs to go in between the sentences and words. And some of the words and sentences were coming through my mind as he was speaking.

One was, as you very well briefed on, the strategic doctrine between the United States on NATO and Warsaw pact, it oscillated between mutual and short destruction and a graduated response. The second phrase that came to my mind was, particularly Jack Crocker was mentioned, during his time in the early Reagan time and even before that, the articulation of the phrase “constructive engagement.” Now if one puts all together the third phrase that came to my mind is confidence-building measures.

Looking at all of those what I sense in the statement, frank as it is, there is an emphasis on the Zimbabwean side to do certain confidence building measures. The question I would have is what is from the American side in terms of confidence building measures, whether it is from the State Department, White House or Congress? I would be interested to know that.

MODERATOR: I would take two more then we get a response from the Ambassador.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you your Excellency for those fair last words. Allow me to make three observations on the word respect and sovereignty.

First one, would America stand a Zimbabwean ambassador going to Virginia and say this and that like we see some of the staffers from embassies doing? That’s my first one.

The second one, you mentioned military code of conduct. On CNN and other related networks, we have watched the Guantanamo Bay, is it? The unbelievable activities conducted on other human beings by the American soldiers. We have seen some footages coming from Iraq of the very depressing activities by American soldiers. May be that’s military discipline or code of conduct. May be that is only accepted in America- is this what we should copy so that we implement? Fortunately, I am happy I haven’t seen some of those very depressing sights within our military.

The last observation your Excellency I want to make, in all the comments or commentaries coming out of Zimbabwe here, surely is there nothing which the MDC or the opposition have done which you have come out to condemn. All your press statements are condemning Zanu PF as if at any one given time there has never been any fault or any misdeeds done by any of these other political parties. It does not give us confidence for you to come and sit down here and tell us that we are ready to re-cultivate when we see day in day out all these activities, all these statements, mostly painful, you are a military person, some of us were in the bush. We suffered. It’s documented and you know it because that is the time that you were also a soldier. We suffered.

We have never gone back to say let’s go back into that history. At independence our President said let’s reconcile. Let us be fair and honest in our interventions, in our approaches when we want to make peace. If we were that bad, why is the United Nations calling for our soldiers, our policemen, our prison services to go and superintend and keep peace in other countries. I beg an answer your Excellency.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Last question

QUESTION: It’s like I don’t know. Because you see, I don’t know. Statements are made, like all of us. I am saying when you go to that war, like he did (pointing at moderator) it was not for, look, we are looking at human beings that died in that war for Zimbabwe. You know, it’s like I am saying here as Sam Mariri, I am (words unclear). Fine. We went to that war to give the people of Zimbabwe the right to decide who they want. That’s what I know! When we went to that war, you know, to decide who they want, they didn’t say because I was in the war, you know, we went to that war, I can tell, he knows (moderator) because he was one of part of it.

The youngsters have a right to decide who do they want to rule this country, if you stand up to me, and tell me you don’t have a credential, no! no! I am not talking about those controversies, I am saying the people of Zimbabwe have the right to say whether they were in the war they will say they want you, now they don’t salute whatever! (inaudible interjections) it’s something, a problem, whatever, when you see the facilitator here has been there for years, because otherwise ka we are immortal, we were in the war we are immortal, we don’t die, our children must not run this country, I am saying as Sam Mariri, Colonel Mariri OK

MODERATOR: Thank you thank you Mariri

QUESTION: We are immortal! Anoziva uyu, he knows that (laughter)

AMBASSADOR RAY: …I think it is a bit premature to talk about debt relief until the entire structure is sort of functioning in a way that gives the debtors that confidence that in fact they are not just erasing one problem and leaving the slate blank for the creation of another. We certainly are willing to discuss any issue that contributes to the economic revitalization of the country but these things have to be taken in a proper order. The IMF team, when it was here, it was discussing the possibility of creating what they call a staff monitoring program and these are not issues, one does not automatically lead to nor overlap with the other, but certainly it is something that we would not object to discussing at the appropriate time.

Your other question about debt that’s deemed odious or illegal, you know I went through this, I was Ambassador to Cambodia during the time when the Cambodians were in discussion with the U.S. over repayment of debts that were incurred during the regime of Lon Nol, I don’t know if you know the history of Cambodia, you know the Hansen government and the Lon Nol government are not (word indistinct). And yet it was determined for legal reasons and that government agreed to a huge portion of the debts that were incurred during a period before they came into being.

That is an issue that legions of lawyers get together and discuss. I don’t even know lawyers use the term odious debt. If it’s an invalid debt of course I would be the first to stand up and say why someone should be made to pay a debt that is considered invalid. But this is the purpose of having a thorough audit to determine what monies are legitimately owed and under what circumstances and it also forms the basis for discussions on debt relief, if you don’t have a good inventory of the debt you can’t really intelligently talk about how much of that debt you are willing to forgive.

Of those three terms you gave I think confidence building is one that I am more comfortable with. I am always a little uncomfortable with the term of the day. I remember when the military started using the term collateral damage to describe accidental civilian casualties and I still cringe every time I hear that word because it seems to be ducking responsibility. I don’t think you can talk about confidence building as one side. Confidence building is a mutual activity and it is not what Zimbabwe has to do for confidence building although I would say internally there needs to be a lot of that.

Confidence building between Zimbabwe and U.S. is not a one way or unilateral activity, we need both sides to sit down, figure out where our problems are, and in order to figure them out we need to be talking to each other, we need to actually be… and more importantly we need to be listening to each. We need to sort of put the ideological rhetoric on hold and find out what is important to each side and where our points of convergence are and then start finding ways to live more harmoniously together.

QUESTION: Your Excellency, it’s like Zimbabweans must realize who they are (laughter)

MODERATOR: Mariri please!

MARIRI: See! (laughter)

AMBASSADOR RAY: OK, and the gentleman there you described as a general, I salute you sir. In Washington there are no restrictions on your Ambassador. He does not need to notify the Department of State when he goes more than 45 miles from his Embassy. He does not have to send a Dip Note to them saying I am going to Houston to meet with anybody. He doesn’t have to get their permission from any police agency to meet with anyone he wishes to meet with. The only thing he is not allowed to do is to go swimming naked in a reflecting pool (laughter)

As for Abu Ghraib I will be the first to agree with you that that was an absolutely disgusting chapter in U.S. military history. I was working in the Pentagon when those pictures surfaced; I was shocked, dismayed and disheartened. But I would point out that those pictures did go public and people were in fact called to account. It was acknowledged. It was not hidden. We did not try to deny that it had happened. You have had a few people in the chain of command who tried to duck responsibility and I can assure you they paid the penalty for doing that. There is a couple of senior officers who are now cutting weeds in their backyards because they are no longer and they are a couple of others who will never see another promotion as long as they live and they are a couple in jail. You know, we are not perfect. No country is perfect.

I could go back even further if you think Abu Ghraib was bad ask the people of My Lai (Vietnam) how bad sometimes soldiers can be. But then you also look and you see that that was made public, it was acknowledged and actions were taken. It is not to say that bad things never happen, it’s to say that you have institutions in place to mitigate the effect of bad things and you have people who accept the responsibility for it. So you won’t hear me defending Abu Ghraib but Abu Ghraib does not represent the ethos of U.S. military, it represents the unlawful behavior of people who were in an improperly supervised environment and whose chain of command failed them and that chain of command paid the price.

You know, I will just go back to my remarks, we spend a lot of time mutually over the last decade or so hurling insults and accusations at each other, but I would ask you to go back since I arrived and find where I have been accusing only saying that Zanu PF is bad. I don’t condemn entire organizations for the actions of a few individuals. I use my words very carefully, if someone does something wrong more often than not I will try to go directly to the person who has done something wrong and tell them what they have done wrong and how I feel about it. It’s a little difficult when they won’t speak to me, so I am left with not much other choice. But lest you think that I say I have made it clear that I find decent people in all political parties here, I find, and if you excuse my use of a non-diplomatic or non very sophisticated expression, I find scumbags everywhere I look too. And that is, I mean, I could go to Washington I could find people in any organization I go there who are good and people who are bad.

I would disagree with your statement that I only condemn Zanu PF. I don’t. I would defy you to find the statements where I have done that. I condemn actions that I feel to be wrong regardless of who did it and I try to take action that’s appropriate, and that I have done and will continue to do. So, I mean, that’s what I will say on that.

As to people who go to war, we had an American general who said “war is hell” and I can tell you having spent a few years in the jungle myself, it is not fun, but you take enough to defend your country and you do your best, and like the rest of you, any of you here who have been to the bush I wouldn’t go back willingly either unless (laughter) if for no other reason than letches and mosquitoes are hard to live with, I’ve had malaria too, so I know exactly what you face in the bush. But that doesn’t give, you know, I have worn the uniform of my country for 20 years, I don’t feel that that gives me rights superior to any other American it gives me rights equal to every other Americans. And that’s the only way to look at it. And as this gentleman said my service to my country was to give every American the right to express their views. Some writer said I disagree with what you have said but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And that’s my ethos, that’s my ideology, that’s my philosophy.

I don’t think we always have to agree, everybody here who is married knows that life is not all about agreement (laughter) it’s about living together, it’s about respect and that we can learn despite whatever differences we have had, despite whatever has happened in the past. One thing you cannot do, no matter how you try, you cannot undo what’s been done in the past. What you can do it to recognize it and try not to redo. As to keep your feet, your eyes, your heart and your mind pointed in the forward direction, walking looking back you fall on your…face or some other part of you neck (applause).

MODERATOR: Thank you Ambassador. As Professor Hasu Patel said this was most refreshing and I think in many respects has fulfilled one of the missions that we have put on the table – how to move things forward. I know in any discussion of the U.S. foreign policy the kind of questions that comrades here have raised were expected, the history of the U.S. foreign policy here in Zimbabwe… Zimbabweans of my age remember that the Geneva conference, I met Crocker after the Namibian independence in 1991 and I reminded him of his madness and how as Africans we had lived through that and defeated what many of us would call imperialist interests at that time. But I think as Ambassador Ray said we are looking at the future and the efforts made by the Ambassador, I had forgotten to mention and I had a businessman reminding me yesterday of the enormous efforts being done at the business front by the U.S.A. through this Ambassador.

And we thought on the diplomatic front we would also engage him as we have tonight. We have here the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and indeed many of our people from the military and security who are also aware of the discussions taking place between the Embassy and Zimbabweans. We have the ministry of foreign affairs, we are hoping that after this meeting to begin what I said at the beginning, or not the beginning but the enhancement of the U.S.- Zimbabwe dialogue. The point is that we cannot ignore, as Zimbabweans, the U.S., a small country that we are is to find our place in the world order and engage in a manner that enhances our national interest because we do have a national interest. That is the purpose of this discussion, and I think Charles, you have done a very good job that you deserve a good dinner. The future is bright as you said… (inaudible)… (Applause)

END TRANSCRIPT

Labels: CHARLES RAY, COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, NEOCOLONIALISM

posted by MrK @ 12:52 PM