British Embassy, Harare

Responses to questions from a journalist at the The Daily Maverick

3 November 2016 (updated 4 November)
Question 1. Pretty much across the civil society and opposition political party
spectrum, Ambassador Laing has been accused of supporting [Vice President
Emmerson Mnangagwa] (I am only writing this story because I was shocked at
how frequently, and with such vehemence, her name came up in my
interviews). I understand she denies this claim. Does she know why this belief
persists so strongly?
Reply. Ambassador Laing denies the claim because it is completely false. We
have been crystal clear, we do not back any party, faction or individual. There is
little we can do about a rumour mill other than to keep restating and explaining
our position. We focus on the policy outcomes that are required to get
Zimbabwe back on track - through improvements in economic governance,
human rights and the rule of law. It is for the people of Zimbabwe to choose
their political leadership
If we had to suggest why the rumours persist it may be that because the UK, as
part of the EU and along with most other foreign partners here, has been willing
to engage with the governments Lima Plan for economic re-engagement. Many
link the Lima Plan to those in government who favour reform and reengagement. But we are completely hard-nosed on the Lima Plan. If the serious
economic reforms it suggests and its commitments on the rule of law and
constitutional alignment including human rights are not implemented, then
nothing will change. We have been absolutely clear on this: we are not willing
to support, and never have been, any form of unconditional bailout.
There is a view among some groups in Zimbabwe that this pathway to reform,
even with all the conditions attached, should not be an option for Zanu-PF. That
view is not shared by the EU or UK. The incentives to reform have to be
available to any ruling party without discrimination. How they respond is for
them to decide.

Question 2: Does the perception that she is taking sides - and the criticism
generated by that perception - compromise her effectiveness as Ambassador
here?
Reply. These claims have no basis in reality and are at worst a distraction from
the work we do here - but very much part of the job. The British Ambassador is
a politically charged role in Zimbabwe, given the history, and always subject to
more scrutiny than most other Ambassadors. The Ambassador is also criticised
by government for supporting opposition and civil society. That is the nature of
the job. We are dealing with the febrile political atmosphere in a country facing
profound difficulties - but it will not distract us from our overall aim to support
the people of Zimbabwe in our shared aspiration for a more peaceful,
prosperous and democratic society.
Question 3. What steps are/have been taken to change this perception and
repair relationships with civil society and opposition parties?
Reply. We have set out our position in the media in a comment
piece and interview, which have been well received by most of our contacts
including those in opposition and civil society. We are posting statements and
getting better at responding to 'firestorms' that break out on social media, though
this is always challenging. The Ambassador routinely meets the main
opposition leaders, as well as parliamentarians, business leaders and civil
society groups.
Post script (4 November)
The article as published makes a number of assertions that are selective or
misleading that we have repeatedly corrected or clarified elsewhere (see reply 3
above). However, it makes disparaging remarks about the ambassadors late
arrival and prompt departure. She did miss the start of the meeting in question
but she arrived as early as possible having flown in overnight from London via
Dubai and came straight from the airport. She did not scuttle off, but stayed to
speak to two participants. She did not linger any longer at the meeting because
she was hosting a dinner for the main panellists at her home.