Mozambique’s former foreign minister, Leonardo Simao,
has categorically denied words put into his mouth by the one-time US charge
d’affaires in Maputo Todd Chapman.
The supposed statements by Simao are contained in a US diplomatic cable from May 2009 signed by Chapman. The cable is among the latest batch of confidential documents released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks.
Chapman claims Simao told him that Frelimo is “corrupt and in need of reform”. The former minister also allegedly accused President Armando Guebuza of running the ruling Frelimo Party “like the mafia”, with Guebuza’s relatives or “cronies” involved “in any significant business deal”.
Simao, Chapman added, did not believe that this would cause a split in Frelimo, and instead “argues the Frelimo will continue to be united because even those who are concerned with the slow pace of reform recognize that they owe their government jobs or privileges to the party - there's no other place to go for employment or economic advancement.”.
Simao has now issued a press release which effectively accuses Chapman of lying. He states that “throughout the years I served in the government, my conduct with international partners was always guided by the need to promote good relations between Mozambique and these partners”. He adds that he remains guided by the same principles, and so regards the words placed in his mouth as “senseless, malicious and tendentious”.
The claims in the cable do not just constitute defamation against Guebuza, but are intended “to stir up conflicts and denigrate my image”.
“Let it be very clear that at no time have I made such statements”, said Simao. “They are the responsibility of those who are using them to attain obscure goals at the cost of my name”.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this affair is that the cable has been eagerly repeated in parts of the Mozambican press as if Todd Chapman were the depository of all truth about the Frelimo government. Gutter press such as the weekly “Canal de Mocambique” have run with the story, and even a serious weekly, “Savana”, gave it credence.
Yet there are obvious problems. Simao was not born yesterday, and having served for ten years as Foreign Minister he knows perfectly well that any discussion with a senior US diplomat, no matter how informal, will find its way back to Washington. Could Simao really want the US State Department to believe that the Mozambican President acts like a mafia boss?
Even if one accepts the simplistic theory that there are two wings in Frelimo, one headed by Guebuza and the other by his predecessor, Joaquim Chissano, with Simao belonging to the latter, it really strains credibility to believe that Simao would have behaved this recklessly.
Furthermore, Chapman has a known track record of hostility to Frelimo and to the Mozambican government. Chapman is one of those diplomats who feeds his headquarters with his own prejudices, and has been caught ought before telling outright lies, in earlier cables published by Wikileaks.
Thus a cable published last year contained sensational claims that Guebuza took a kickback of up to 50 million dollars in the handover of the Cahora Bassa dam to Mozambican control, that former Prime Minister Luisa Diogo takes bribes for the ruling Frelimo Party, with a cut for herself, and leading Frelimo parliamentarian Manuel Tome “receives pay-offs openly”.
The source for all these claims was a businessman who could easily be identified. AIM spoke to this businessman and he categorically denied speaking to Chapman about Cahora Bassa, Luisa Diogo or Manuel Tome.
Like Simao now, the business source was particularly angered that Chapman had put insults against Guebuza into his mouth, comparing the President to “a scorpion”.
“That hurt me a lot”, this source told AIM. “I would never insult the President. I have good relations with the President. He has always behaved towards me as a gentleman”.
Chapman’s cable demonstrated gross ignorance about the companies he claimed Guebuza owns. Chapman stated that “Guebuza also has a share in Maputo Corridor Logistics Initiative (MCLI) which controls the toll road from Maputo to South Africa”. But Guebuza cannot have “a share” in the MCLI because it is not a company.
It is a non-profit making organisation, which brings together South African and Mozambican companies and investors in a drive to increase the use of the road and rail links between Maputo port and South Africa. It does not control the toll road, either – Chapman has confused it with Trans-African Concessions (TRAC), the South African company that really does run the Maputo-South Africa motorway.
In another of the cables released last year Chapman claimed that Guebuza has shares in various banks – but two of the bodies he listed, Mocambique Capitais and Geocapital are not banks. Geocapital is not even Mozambican – it is the holding company of the Macau billionaire Stanley Ho, and describes itself as a bridge between China and the Portuguese speaking world.
Chapman seemed unaware that it is perfectly possible to find out who owns shares in Mozambican companies. He claimed that Guebuza is a shareholder in the country’s second largest bank, the BCI. But it is easy to check the list of shareholders and see that Armando Guebuza’s name is not there.
The majority shareholder in the BCI is the Portuguese state bank, the Caixa Geral de Depositos (CGD), with 51 per cent. The main Mozambican shareholder in the BCI is the Insitec group, chaired by Celso Correia. In fact Insitec was set up as a family company, and the people who own it are mostly members of Correia’s family. Guebuza does not figure in the list of Insitec shareholders.
Information on the ownership structure of Mozambican banks is publicly available. But Chapman could not be bothered to look it up.
Since the cables released last year are full of lies and inaccuracies, why should we believe this latest Wikileaks “revelation”? What makes Todd Chapman more reliable than Leonardo Simao? Diplomats are not always impartial observers, but often push their own agendas.
Given Chapman’s known hostility to Frelimo, there is nothing unlikely about him abusing his position in order to damage the Mozambican government in the eyes of his employers in Washington.
In 2009, Chapman knew that his time in Mozambique was drawing to a close (he was transferred to Afghanistan). So he took advantage of his last few months to stick the knife into a government and ruling party he disliked, and sent compilations of a few facts, a great deal of rumour and much outright fabrication to the State Department.
A second figure mentioned in the latest cable, businessman Ahmed Camal, has also denied Chapman’s claim that he called the head of the customs service, Domingos Tivane, “the King of Corruption”.
This claim was published in the independent daily newsheet “Mediafax” on 6 September. In a letter printed by the paper on Monday, Camal admits to various informal conversations with Chapman, and states that he is certainly critical of “the lack of political will to fight against corruption”. But he claims he has “a good private and institutional relationship” with Tivane, and denies making any accusations against him.
Again, we must ask – on what grounds, given Chapman’s past, should we believe him rather than Camal?
By Paul Fauvet
Source: AIM
The supposed statements by Simao are contained in a US diplomatic cable from May 2009 signed by Chapman. The cable is among the latest batch of confidential documents released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks.
Chapman claims Simao told him that Frelimo is “corrupt and in need of reform”. The former minister also allegedly accused President Armando Guebuza of running the ruling Frelimo Party “like the mafia”, with Guebuza’s relatives or “cronies” involved “in any significant business deal”.
Simao, Chapman added, did not believe that this would cause a split in Frelimo, and instead “argues the Frelimo will continue to be united because even those who are concerned with the slow pace of reform recognize that they owe their government jobs or privileges to the party - there's no other place to go for employment or economic advancement.”.
Simao has now issued a press release which effectively accuses Chapman of lying. He states that “throughout the years I served in the government, my conduct with international partners was always guided by the need to promote good relations between Mozambique and these partners”. He adds that he remains guided by the same principles, and so regards the words placed in his mouth as “senseless, malicious and tendentious”.
The claims in the cable do not just constitute defamation against Guebuza, but are intended “to stir up conflicts and denigrate my image”.
“Let it be very clear that at no time have I made such statements”, said Simao. “They are the responsibility of those who are using them to attain obscure goals at the cost of my name”.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this affair is that the cable has been eagerly repeated in parts of the Mozambican press as if Todd Chapman were the depository of all truth about the Frelimo government. Gutter press such as the weekly “Canal de Mocambique” have run with the story, and even a serious weekly, “Savana”, gave it credence.
Yet there are obvious problems. Simao was not born yesterday, and having served for ten years as Foreign Minister he knows perfectly well that any discussion with a senior US diplomat, no matter how informal, will find its way back to Washington. Could Simao really want the US State Department to believe that the Mozambican President acts like a mafia boss?
Even if one accepts the simplistic theory that there are two wings in Frelimo, one headed by Guebuza and the other by his predecessor, Joaquim Chissano, with Simao belonging to the latter, it really strains credibility to believe that Simao would have behaved this recklessly.
Furthermore, Chapman has a known track record of hostility to Frelimo and to the Mozambican government. Chapman is one of those diplomats who feeds his headquarters with his own prejudices, and has been caught ought before telling outright lies, in earlier cables published by Wikileaks.
Thus a cable published last year contained sensational claims that Guebuza took a kickback of up to 50 million dollars in the handover of the Cahora Bassa dam to Mozambican control, that former Prime Minister Luisa Diogo takes bribes for the ruling Frelimo Party, with a cut for herself, and leading Frelimo parliamentarian Manuel Tome “receives pay-offs openly”.
The source for all these claims was a businessman who could easily be identified. AIM spoke to this businessman and he categorically denied speaking to Chapman about Cahora Bassa, Luisa Diogo or Manuel Tome.
Like Simao now, the business source was particularly angered that Chapman had put insults against Guebuza into his mouth, comparing the President to “a scorpion”.
“That hurt me a lot”, this source told AIM. “I would never insult the President. I have good relations with the President. He has always behaved towards me as a gentleman”.
Chapman’s cable demonstrated gross ignorance about the companies he claimed Guebuza owns. Chapman stated that “Guebuza also has a share in Maputo Corridor Logistics Initiative (MCLI) which controls the toll road from Maputo to South Africa”. But Guebuza cannot have “a share” in the MCLI because it is not a company.
It is a non-profit making organisation, which brings together South African and Mozambican companies and investors in a drive to increase the use of the road and rail links between Maputo port and South Africa. It does not control the toll road, either – Chapman has confused it with Trans-African Concessions (TRAC), the South African company that really does run the Maputo-South Africa motorway.
In another of the cables released last year Chapman claimed that Guebuza has shares in various banks – but two of the bodies he listed, Mocambique Capitais and Geocapital are not banks. Geocapital is not even Mozambican – it is the holding company of the Macau billionaire Stanley Ho, and describes itself as a bridge between China and the Portuguese speaking world.
Chapman seemed unaware that it is perfectly possible to find out who owns shares in Mozambican companies. He claimed that Guebuza is a shareholder in the country’s second largest bank, the BCI. But it is easy to check the list of shareholders and see that Armando Guebuza’s name is not there.
The majority shareholder in the BCI is the Portuguese state bank, the Caixa Geral de Depositos (CGD), with 51 per cent. The main Mozambican shareholder in the BCI is the Insitec group, chaired by Celso Correia. In fact Insitec was set up as a family company, and the people who own it are mostly members of Correia’s family. Guebuza does not figure in the list of Insitec shareholders.
Information on the ownership structure of Mozambican banks is publicly available. But Chapman could not be bothered to look it up.
Since the cables released last year are full of lies and inaccuracies, why should we believe this latest Wikileaks “revelation”? What makes Todd Chapman more reliable than Leonardo Simao? Diplomats are not always impartial observers, but often push their own agendas.
Given Chapman’s known hostility to Frelimo, there is nothing unlikely about him abusing his position in order to damage the Mozambican government in the eyes of his employers in Washington.
In 2009, Chapman knew that his time in Mozambique was drawing to a close (he was transferred to Afghanistan). So he took advantage of his last few months to stick the knife into a government and ruling party he disliked, and sent compilations of a few facts, a great deal of rumour and much outright fabrication to the State Department.
A second figure mentioned in the latest cable, businessman Ahmed Camal, has also denied Chapman’s claim that he called the head of the customs service, Domingos Tivane, “the King of Corruption”.
This claim was published in the independent daily newsheet “Mediafax” on 6 September. In a letter printed by the paper on Monday, Camal admits to various informal conversations with Chapman, and states that he is certainly critical of “the lack of political will to fight against corruption”. But he claims he has “a good private and institutional relationship” with Tivane, and denies making any accusations against him.
Again, we must ask – on what grounds, given Chapman’s past, should we believe him rather than Camal?
By Paul Fauvet
Source: AIM
No comments:
Post a Comment