The Zimbabwean Consul General in South Africa, Godfrey Dvairo, told South African Members of Parliament here today that his country had no problem with the peer review mechanism of the African Union.
In a briefing to members of the foreign affairs portfolio committee of the national assembly on the ”internal situation” in Zimbabwe, Dvairo defended his country’s record, which he said had five years ago been touted as an example of a stable and prosperous country — but since the land reform program attempts had been made to present it as a pariah of the world.
Asked by Democratic Alliance MP Colin Eglin — the longest serving South African parliamentarian — whether Zimbabwe would abide by the peer review mechanism, Dvairo said the mechanism was an instrument of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad), which in turn was associated with the African Union.
”We are a member of the AU, Nepad is an initiative of this union. We subscribe to everything that is contained in that initiative in a way that has been agreed to by the rest of the continent. The short answer is we are willing to subject ourselves to that peer review exercise,” he said.
Amid an avalanche of international criticism of Zimbabwe, the diplomat said that the government was legitimate, there was a multi-party system and the courts were ”open”.
”A lot of lies, disinformation and rumour mongering have muddied the picture of that situation in Zimbabwe. Very often it is difficult for people to tell exactly what the situation is like. It is not an exaggeration; we have a constitutionally elected government in Zimbabwe, its legitimacy has been certified by this very parliament and other responsible members of the international community. We are a sovereign state; we are not a rogue state as is often presented by the media and Zimbabwe’s detractors”.
”The situation we find ourselves in is one which basically illustrates the double standards that are applied to states who have the power and those who wish to interpret international law and its principles in accordance with the furtherance of their own narrow interests,” he said, in apparent reference to Britain and the United States.
Referring to the land reform program — which the opposition argue has seen thousands of commercial farmers and farm workers displaced — he said: ”Because of the bold step that we took in Zimbabwe in bringing the fight against colonialism to its logical conclusion, the government and leadership of Zimbabwe have been demonised and vilified. Our land reform program has elicited the wrath of the United Kingdom, our erstwhile coloniser, and its allies.
Zimbabwe’s economy has been battered by sabotage to punish the government for embarking on that program.”
Eglin thanked him for his ”spirited defence” of Zimbabwe, but noted that South African parliamentarians were able to access other information about the country from among others business interests, opposition parliamentarians in Zimbabwe and other interest groups and a contrasting view of the country had been the outcome.
But Dvairo said that ”apart from petrol and food queues everything else seems to be ticking over in Zimbabwe”.
At the insistence of Britain and the United States the Bretton Woods institutions had cut off financial support to Zimbabwe but he believed that the economy would return to normal ”with balance of payments support”.
Asked by the Freedom Front’s Corne Mulder, if he would welcome an international media group to the country to see the situation for themselves. Dvairo said: ”They would be very welcome.”
He defended registration of journalists, saying that the government merely wished to know who they were and that they did not have some hidden agenda. – I-Net Bridge