President Robert Mugabe told the United Nations that Zimbabwe did not enjoy criticising the United States and Britain. The criticism was based on sound, fundamental principles.
Addressing the United Nations on Zimbabwe’s opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, Mugabe said Zimbabwe was in the chair when the Security Council authorised the first Gulf War.
“We stood firmly by the US, Britain and many other nations that removed Iraq from Kuwait. We did so on the basis that expansionism and occupation of a sovereign country and people cannot be right, can never be just and warranted under any circumstance….
“It is the absence of the same ingredients that explain our indignation, our sharp censure of the so-called coalition of the willing that does not seem to recognise that both the Iraqis and the world are unwilling to sanction the means employed, and the end achieved,” said Mugabe.
Viewing cable 03HARARE1975, MEDIA REACTION MUGABE’S BROADSIDE AGAINST WEST;
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
300813Z Sep 03
UNCLAS HARARE 001975
DEPT FOR AF/PDPA FOR DALTON, MITCHELL AND SIMS; AF FOR
IRAQ PD FOR SMITH, PINESS AND ROOKARD
NSC FOR JENDAYI FRAZER
LONDON FOR GURNEY
PARIS FOR NEARY
NAIROBI FOR PFLAUMER
E.O. 12958: N/A
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION MUGABE’S BROADSIDE AGAINST WEST;
¶1. Robert Mugabe’s broadside against the West, especially
the United States and Britain, while addressing the 58th
United nations General Assembly in New York, made the lead
story in the September 27 edition of the government-
controlled daily “The Herald” (circulation 5-70,000).
Under headline “Don’t dictate to us, West told: Zim’s
criticism of Britain, United States based on principles:
President,” the newspaper’s Presidential Reporter Innocent
Gore, who accompanied Mugabe to New York, filed the
¶2. “Zimbabwe does not criticize Britain and the United
States for the sake of it but its criticism is based
on fundamental principles, President Mugabe said
(09/26/03). Addressing the 58th U. N. General
Assembly in New York, Mugabe attacked the emergence
of unipolarism in world affairs in which powerful
nations such as Britain and the U. S. sought to
dominate the world and dictate to other countries
how they should govern themselves. He lamented the
invasion of Iraq by the U. S. and Britain without
the mandate of the U. N. `Let it not be said that
Zimbabwe enjoys criticizing the U. S. and Britain
for the sake of criticism. Our criticisms are
founded on sound, fundamental principles. Let it
not be forgotten that Zimbabwe was in the chair when
the Security Council authorized the first Gulf War.
We stood firmly by the U. S., Britain and many other
nations that removed Iraq from Kuwait. We did so on
the basis that expansionism and occupation of a
sovereign country and people cannot be right, can
never be just and warranted under any circumstance.
We admired the deployment of power under the
auspices of the U. N. It is the absence of the same
ingredients that explain our indignation, our sharp
censure of the so-called coalition of the willing
that does not seem to recognize that both the Iraqis
and the world are unwilling to sanction the means
employed, and the end achieved,’ said Mugabe.
“. . .Mugabe said at the heart of the tragedy in the
Persian Gulf was the unprecedented assault on
multilateralism in world affairs represented by the
Security Council which is the only guarantor of
global peace, order and security. `Some powerful
western nations, led by the U. S. and Britain, went
to a war of unclear objectives in the face of clear
opposition from the rest of the world and as we now
know, with clear opposition from their own people.
It was and remains (an) unjust and illegitimate war,
unjust to the extent that it was founded and
prosecuted on falsehoods; illegitimate to the extent
that it was not sanctioned by the U. N. and has
transformed itself into effective occupation of a
sovereign people.’ Mugabe said there could never be
world peace under conditions of foreign invasion and
occupation. There could never be world security and
order when naked power suspended and substituted
with unilateralism the hallowed principle of
multilateralism, on the basis of which peace had
been made, kept, preserved and expanded since the
Second World War. . .’ It is a strange logic that
the Iraqis pay for a bad president, a bad government
and a bad war by occupation and loss of their
sovereignty. Let us state here quite clearly to
both Britain and the U. S. that the Iraqi people
must have the sovereign right to determine the
affairs of their country. . . .'”