What did the EU really mean?

Mon, 22 May 2017 12:45:22 +0000

Dear Editor,

What message are the EU representatives in Zambia sending to the world, especially the West, with their clarification that the EU recognized President Edgar Lungu as duly elected and further advised opposition political parties in the country to respect State institutions and individuals heading them? (“Opposition must respect State institutions – EU”, Daily Nation, May 20, 2017).

Even though the European parliament clarified that it had never demanded for the release of UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema but instead had called for fairness, diligence, and transparency in the application of the law in the justice process, unfortunately, its message was pregnant with misleading meaning in the UPND strongholds of Southern, North-Western and Western provinces.

So, what did the EU really mean? (“EU denies call for HH release”, Daily Nation, May 20, 2017).

Suffice to say, the incarceration of the UPND leader for treason is one of those events that come along once in a decade, defining and sometimes redefining the political landscape. Let us consider some of the implications.

First, the Zambian people had spoken in the 11 August 2016 polls. What was the message that they gave the world with the election result?

 Was it that they did not believe in regime change and so had not factored this into their deliberations?

Was it that they believed that Zambia should be the place to resolve the issues of regime change or not?

The peaceful 2016 elections showed that Zambia has the capacity and maturity to deal with issues of right or wrong, and so, going forward it might mean that the best way of maintaining progress is to have the EU get involved in ‘a shuttle diplomacy’ style process before any political dialogue is facilitated among key political players, particularly between the PF and the UPND.

In the meantime and during the 2016 polls, were Zambians reacting to the EU interference by deliberately choosing the opposite presidential candidate to the one hinted as favoured and acceptable by the EU?

Whatever it was, choices have consequences. Meaning that a perverse result remains a perverse result and if countries decide for their own complicated internal reasons not to elect impudent opposition leaders who are eventually accused of serious capital crimes, then other countries are not obliged to ignore their own values to deal with them.

The consequences in the short-term for the EU and its policy in Africa, have been humiliating.

Over the UPND leader’s incarceration for treason, thinly veiled threats have been made by some quarters in the EU about diplomatic isolation, and even the possibility of sanctions and the Zambian people have simply ignored them.

What will the EU response now be? Will Hakainde Hichilema be treated as the overall representative of the Zambian people or will he be snubbed, thereby snubbing the UPND supporters themselves in three out of ten provinces?

As every parent knows, it is unwise to make threats or promises, advice or clarification without following through.

 If the EU countries do not follow through, do they not damage their own geo-political, economic and regional interests in the SADC strategic hub that is Zambia?

Over the UPND leader’s incarceration for treason, will Zambian human rights civil society listen to what law-abiding and peace-loving Zambians have to say, even though they may not like what they hear?

Ditto, will the EU countries listen to what the ordinary Zambians have to say, even though they may not like what they’re hearing? Let us wait and see.

Mubanga Luchembe,

LUSAKA