EU-ZAMBIA RELATIONS STRONG
There is a lot of talk in Zambia suggesting that the European Parliament’s resolution on the country means Zambia’s relationship with the European Union has ended, or that Zambia has now been “dented” as a nation.
That conclusion needs some perspective.
The European Parliament regularly adopts resolutions on human rights, elections, political repression and rule-of-law concerns in countries with which the EU has diplomatic and economic relationships. These resolutions are parliamentary positions. They are not court judgments, criminal convictions or declarations that diplomatic relations have been terminated.
Look at the precedent.
In 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the United States over the Guantanamo detention facility. It called on the US administration to close Guantanamo and insisted that prisoners be treated in accordance with international law. The United States remained a major EU partner.
More recently, in November 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution concerning post-election killings and human-rights concerns in Tanzania. It called for independent investigations, due process and political dialogue, and urged the EU to consider measures against those responsible for violations.
That did not mean Tanzania ceased to have a relationship with Europe.
The Zambia resolution should therefore be understood in its proper institutional context.
The European Parliament has expressed concerns about what it says are post-election repression, the circumstances surrounding the death of Mutotwe Kafwaya, arrests and the treatment of political opponents. Those concerns deserve to be examined on their evidence and, where appropriate, answered by the Zambian authorities.
But saying, “The EU has ended its relationship with Zambia,” is a much bigger claim than the resolution itself establishes.
Likewise, saying, “Zambia has been internationally disgraced,” is a political interpretation, not the legal or diplomatic effect of a parliamentary resolution.
A mature response is neither to dismiss the European Parliament nor to exaggerate what it has done.
We can acknowledge legitimate concerns, demand that allegations be properly investigated, defend Zambia’s sovereignty and institutions, and at the same time recognize that disagreements with European institutions do not automatically terminate diplomatic, economic or development relations.
In fact, the European Parliament’s own practice shows that it has criticized even major partners such as the United States while those relationships continued.
So let’s debate the substance of the resolution rather than turning it into a declaration of national catastrophe.
Zambia’s international reputation should ultimately be judged by the strength of its institutions, the credibility of its investigations, respect for the law, and how the country responds to difficult questions, not simply by the existence of one European Parliament resolution.