This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 002628 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF, AF/S, CA/OCS, AND DS 
NSC FOR SENIOR DIRECTOR FRAZER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/21/2004 
TAGS: PREL CASC EINV ASEC ODIP ZI
SUBJECT: MFA OFFICIAL DISCUSSES GILMAN SHOOTING, MELFORT 
DETENTION, AND EXPROPRIATION OF AMCIT PROPERTY 
 
REF: A) HARARE 2487 B) HARARE 2529 
 
Classified By: CLASSIFIED BY DCM REWHITEHEAD DUE TO 1.5 (B). 
 
¶1.  (c) Summary.  The Ambassador and DCM met with MFA 
Division Director for Europe and the Americas, Joey Bihma, 
and acting desk officer Henry Mukonoweshuro on November 20 at 
Bihma's invitation.  A cordial, almost conciliatory, Bihma 
stated that he wished to address the shooting by police of 
Richard Gilman in Mutare and the detention of two Embassy 
staff by war vets on farm near Melfort (ref b).  On the 
Gilman incident, Bihma handed over a more thorough police 
report, as requested by the Ambassador in an earlier meeting 
with Fonmin Mudenge (ref a).  On the Melfort episode, Bihma 
pointed out that the MFA would find it easier to protect 
traveling American diplomats if the Ministry were informed in 
advance of their movements and destinations, to which the 
Ambassador was non-committal.  The Ambassador also raised two 
de facto expropriations of properties owned by American 
citizens and explained that this could become a factor in the 
annual selection of the list of countries that may benefit 
from the General Schedule of Preferences (GSP).  Bihma 
expressed optimism that this issue could be resolved. 
Negative commentary in the GOZ press following the release of 
an Embassy statement on the Melfort incident has continued 
through November 21, but Bihma's buttery comportment leads us 
to believe that the GOZ is still reluctant to tackle us in 
person head on.  End summary. 
 
------------------- 
The Gilman Shooting 
------------------- 
 
¶2.  (sbu) Bihma had very little to say on the shooting of 
Richard Gilman, other than to note that both sides had agreed 
on the need for a thorough investigation.  He noted that the 
MFA had requested the police to do this, and that the ZRP had 
completed and submitted the report on November 19.  He passed 
a copy of the report to the Ambassador, who acknowledged our 
satisfaction that the GOZ had respected our requests for 
access to the vehicle in which Mr. Gilman was killed and the 
presence of a medical representative of the Gilman family 
present during the autopsy.  The report, which was not all 
that thorough, has been transmitted septel.  We will relay 
our views to the GOZ on the report, and the use of lethal 
force over a question of documentation, in a note verbale. 
 
--------------------- 
The Melfort Detention 
--------------------- 
 
¶3.  (sbu) Bihma said that Fonmin Mudenge had asked him to 
point out that the MFA had in the past circulated a memo 
advising diplomats to inform the MFA in advance of travel, 
supplying information on timing and destination.  Bihma 
hastened to add that this was for purposes of notification, 
not asking permission.  It would allow the MFA to inform 
local security officials to ensure the safety of traveling 
diplomats, and would be a proper and helpful gesture.  Bihma 
said that such notice would not be necessary for recreational 
visits, only normal official business.  The Ambassador asked 
if there had been any progress on our request that personal 
belongings and documents taken from USG employees be promptly 
returned.  Bihma replied that there was no report on this 
yet.  The Ambassador stressed that the incident remained of 
great concern to us.  Although we had managed to contact an 
MFA and police officials when we were informed of the 
detention, we had a hard time getting the MFA secretariat to 
accept our note verbale on the incident during Ministry 
working hours.  We were also unwilling to lodge a complaint 
with police near Melfort, who were acting as if this were a 
routine police matter when it was, in fact, a political and 
diplomatic incident.  Bihma agreed that matters affecting 
diplomats were to be handled by the MFA and said that the MFA 
would be sure that we were in possession of a valid telephone 
contact number for the Ministry's duty officer.  DCM rejoined 
that this mechanism had not proven particularly reliable in 
the past. 
 
------------------------------- 
Expropriation of Amcit Property 
------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (sbu) The Ambassador took the occasion to raise two 
documented expropriations of Amcit properties, a ranch and a 
farm.  Both had received two or more of the Section 5, 7, and 
8 notices under the land reform legislation, and the Amcit 
owners had been dispossessed of their properties.  In one 
other case, the expropriation mechanism was underway although 
the amcits in questions retained control of their respective 
properties.  The Ambassador said that we had at various 
points delivered notes verbale on these cases -- he passed 
copies to Bihma -- but since June de facto expropriation had 
occurred nonetheless.  The Americans in question had 
exhausted legal remedies.  The Ambassador noted that under 
both international and U.S. regulations, the respect for 
property rights, or prompt and fair compensation, are the 
norm. He continued that the U.S. legislative schedule will 
soon begin its annual review of GSP beneficiaries, which 
receive preferential access to U.S. markets in the form of 
lowered duty.  Last year, Zimbabwe had benefited from this 
program to the tune of USD 26 million.  One aspect of this 
qualifying for this program, however, is whether property 
owned by U.S. citizens has been expropriated. 
 
¶5.  (c) Bihma said that he had been unaware of the listing of 
the properties in question.  There had been a Cabinet 
decision to delist properties owned by foreign investors.  In 
the event that overriding national interests were at stake, 
the owners must be compensated fully for the property.  He 
said that the current financial situation made such 
compensation impossible, and thus delisting is the norm.  He 
offered to look into the issue and return to us with a more 
definitive response. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶6.  (c) Bihma had clearly received instructions to break no 
eggs in his dealings with us.  Following the release of the 
Embassy's strongly worded November 19 press statement on the 
Melfort incident, Information Minister Jonathan Moyo engaged 
in his usual braying performance in the GOZ written press, 
and on November 21 the GOZ Herald ran an article claiming 
that U.S. diplomats were under order to give 48 hour 
notification for travel outside of Harare, a statement that 
directly contradicts what Bihma stated.  The article further 
claims that the Ambassador was apologetic -- he was not -- 
and characterized our press statement on the Melfort as 
"undiplomatic and defamatory."  Whatever the GOZ propaganda 
machine may churn out, face to face Bihma and his handlers 
appear unwilling to take us head on.  We have implemented new 
measures to minimize the risk of Melfort incidents in our 
travel into the field, but we have no intention of abandoning 
these missions.  We also do not intend to provide the MFA 
forty-eight hour notice -- only the British have been ordered 
to do so -- unless expressly told to do so in writing.  At 
that moment, we will request reciprocal treatment of 
Zimbabwean officials posted in Washington and New York. 
 
Sullivan 
SULLIVAN