Don’t shoot the messenger, face the message
THE response by Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Mulambo Haimbe to remarks made by outgoing United States (US) Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales was as predictable as it was disappointing. Instead of engaging substantively with the concerns raised, he has chosen a familiar but counterproductive route by discrediting the messenger while sidestepping the message.
In his statement, Haimbe urged Zambians and global partners to ignore the ambassador’s assertions, framing them as personal opinions expressed during a farewell event. He also suggested that the departure of Gonzales offers a ‘unique opportunity’ for relations between Zambia and the US to “blossom and grow”.
On the surface, this may sound diplomatic and reassuring. In reality, it risks appearing dismissive of legitimate concerns raised by a key international partner.
Diplomacy by its very nature is not conducted in a vacuum of personal opinion. It stretches naivety to suggest that a sitting ambassador, especially one who has completed his tour of duty, would publicly air views that are entirely detached from the policy positions or observations of his government. To label Gonzales a rogue diplomat speaking in a personal capacity is not only naïve but also undermines the seriousness with which such statements should be treated.
The uncomfortable truth is that the issues raised by Gonzales will not simply disappear with his departure. They are not tied to an individual personality, but to broader governance, policy and institutional concerns that have been consistently flagged by sections of the international community. Ignoring them does not make them less valid. If anything, it amplifies perceptions that there is reluctance to confront difficult questions.
For Hakainde Hichilema and his administration, this moment calls for introspection rather than defensiveness. Strong bilateral relations are not built on polite rhetoric alone, but on mutual accountability, transparency and a willingness to address areas of concern. If these issues remain unresolved, it is highly likely that the successor of Gonzales will echo similar sentiments. When that happens, will the government once again dismiss those views as personal opinions?
Haimbe’s appeal to citizens and international partners to disregard the remarks of Gonzales is equally troubling. It suggests an attempt to shape perception rather than confront substance. Leadership demands more than managing optics; it requires engaging with criticism in a manner that strengthens institutions and reinforces confidence, both domestically and internationally.
It is also important to recognise that the global community is neither oblivious nor indifferent to what is happening in Zambia. Statements made by diplomats, particularly at official engagements, are closely monitored and analysed. They inform policy direction, investment decisions and diplomatic posture. To assume that such remarks can simply be brushed aside without consequence is to underestimate the interconnected nature of modern international relations.
It is naïve for Haimbe to habour expectations that there will be a significant shift in US foreign policy towards Zambia following Gonzales’ departure. Foreign policy is shaped by strategic interests and institutional assessments, not individual envoys. As long as underlying concerns persist, they will continue to feature in diplomatic engagements between the two nations.
None of this diminishes Zambia’s stated commitment to maintaining strong ties with the United States, a relationship that has historically been mutually beneficial. However, genuine partnership thrives on honesty and accountability even when it is uncomfortable. Constructive criticism should not be viewed as hostility, but as an opportunity to recalibrate and strengthen governance frameworks.
Haimbe would therefore serve the country better by encouraging a candid review of the issues raised instead of dismissing them outright. Engaging with these concerns head-on would send a powerful signal that Zambia is committed to upholding the principles it espouses on the global stage.
In the end, the path forward lies not in questioning the credibility of the messenger, but in addressing the message itself. Only then can Zambia safeguard its international standing and ensure that its relations, especially with key partners like the US continue to grow on a firm and credible foundation.
Everyone knows that there is unprecedented corruption in government under the UPND, and that the current regime has seriously tampered with the Constitution to weaken the opposition for its own political survival.
