[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ZIMBABWE: OPPORTUNITIES FOR A NEW
WAY FORWARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 7, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-549 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, CaliforniaAs TED POE, Texas
of 3/12/09 deg. BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman
DIANE E. WATSON, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
BARBARA LEE, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, CaliforniaAs
of 3/18/09 deg.
Noelle Lusane, Subcommittee Staff Director
Sheri Rickert, Republican Professional Staff Member
Antonina King, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy... 7
Mr. Joy Mabenge, Democracy and Governance Officer, Institute for
a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe.......................... 23
Nicole Lee, Esq., Executive Director, TransAfrica Forum.......... 29
The Honorable Lorne W. Craner, President, International
Republican Institute (former Assistant Secretary for Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor)........................................ 43
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Carl Gershman: Prepared statement............................ 11
Mr. Joy Mabenge: Prepared statement.............................. 26
Nicole Lee, Esq.: Prepared statement............................. 32
The Honorable Lorne W. Craner: Prepared statement................ 46
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 74
Hearing minutes.................................................. 75
ZIMBABWE: OPPORTUNITIES FOR A NEW WAY FORWARD
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Payne
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Payne. The hearing will come to order. First of all,
let me begin by welcoming all of this morning's very important
guests to the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health's
hearing entitled, ``Zimbabwe: Opportunities for a New Way
Forward.''
Zimbabwe's political, economic, and humanitarian crises
make headlines nearly every day. What is often forgotten is
Zimbabwe's great history. Zimbabwe's history is one which can
only be explained by how it has fallen from a place of
prominence to the current state but can also offer hope and
promise for the future.
As a former history teacher, I am a true believer in the
importance of placing things in their proper historical
contexts. As we all know, the British South African Company
arrived in Mashonaland, the land of the Shona people, in 1890
and gave each of its settlers 1,210 hectares of land. The
settlers waged war against the Indebel people in 1893 to 1894,
resulting in Africans being confined to native reserves known
as ``communal areas.''
According to a CRS report, the Land Apportionment Act of
1930 formally set aside over half of the country's total land,
including the most fertile zones, for Whites only, and the Land
Tenure Act of 1969 allocated most of the remaining unreserved
land to so-called ``European areas'' while denying Africans any
possibility of acquiring land in those areas.
There has been an influx of European settlers after World
War II, and by the 1960s, there were more than 200,000 Whites
in Zimbabwe while Africans numbered about 7 million.
The territory became a self-governing colony, known as
``Southern Rhodesia,'' in 1923.
In the 1960s African resistance to the White regime began
just as it had been taking place elsewhere on the continent.
Ghana had become independent and Sudan had in the late fifties.
Kenya was moving toward that, and so this whole new spirit of
independent was going through the continent.
In 1972, the Freedom Movement, Zimbabwe African National
Union (ZANU), led by Reverend Satoli and, later, by Robert
Mugabe, and the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), led by
Joshua Nkomo, were launched.
Bishop Musaware became Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1979,
after elections were held in Rhodesia, and it was renamed
``Zimbabwe.'' Of course, those elections were less than fair.
They were segregated elections, and of the 100 persons elected
to the Parliament, 28 seats were reserved for the 200,000
Whites. The 7 million Blacks had the other 72 seats, so there
was certainly not one-person-one-vote; that is for sure.
Later that year, the agreement was reached at Lancaster
House in London. Robert Mugabe became Prime Minister a year
later.
Known then as the ``bread basket of Africa,'' Zimbabwe
became a model in the region in the areas of election,
infrastructure, and health. Post-independence, Zimbabwe clearly
demonstrated much of the best of Africa and what Africans are
capable of doing, despite decades of repressive White rule.
White Zimbabweans were embraced, not chased out of the
country or mistreated, as cynics predicted. Human rights were
largely respected, and the rule of law prevailed in the
country.
Over the last decade, however, conditions went from bad to
worse, in large part due to poor leadership. The once
politically stable country became increasingly chaotic, and the
economics left a shambles.
Human rights abuses were extensive and increasing, and the
government, under Robert Mugabe, seemed to care nothing for the
rule of law. The people of Zimbabwe became the primary victims
of the Mugabe regime.
I have tried desperately to engage the government in a
constructive dialogue to address these concerns over the years.
I am resolved to help the people of Zimbabwe realize their
dreams of true freedom.
The method of redistribution of land from White landowners
to political allies of President Mugabe was misguided and was
done wrongly, therefore, preventing the process of Lancaster
House from really playing out.
However, the land issue is a real problem in the region,
and I am committed to seeing a just and equitable distribution
of land throughout southern Africa consistent with the rule of
law.
In 2001, I pushed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic
Recovery Act through the House, and it was signed into law at
the end of that year. The bill's principal objective, at that
time, was to help restore the rule of law, respect for human
rights, free and fair elections, and sound economic reform. The
legislation provided new funding for Zimbabwe if serious
reforms were undertaken by the government. The legislation did
not punish the people of Zimbabwe but did include targeted
travel bans against top government officials who fought the
rule of law.
The United States remains one of the largest donors in
humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, but our assistance is very
limited and may not include assistance in agriculture and other
areas that would really help Zimbabwe improve the lives of so
many Zimbabweans.
Many of the highly educated and hard-working people have
fled the violence and the dire conditions and have gone to
other countries, many to South Africa, as a matter of fact, so
many that there was a xenophobia backlash about a year ago in
South Africa.
Civil society groups and political activists were targets
of brutal violence. The economy had all but collapsed. The
hopes and dreams of many Zimbabweans had been crushed.
What is crucial, at this juncture, is that we look forward.
Today, we have something most of us thought was impossible: A
government of national unity that includes ZANU-PF and the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), long-time rivals Robert
Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. We would be naive if we concluded
that, therefore, everything is right, and all is fair, and
everything is just, but I think we have to acknowledge that
there is a government of national unity and that it does
include ZANU-PF and MDC.
I am concerned that many challenges remain, and there are
those who want to see this government fail. However, we should
remember that this kind of arrangement has worked successfully
elsewhere in Africa. South Africa is a classic example.
What is important to remember is that if these two folds
can come together, and if we provide the right type of
assistance to help build democratic institutions and help
restore the economy so that public services can be restored,
people can buy or grow the food they need, and real education
can again return, Zimbabwe may once again become the great
model and source of African pride it once was.
We must help strengthen the institution of democracy. While
we should maintain our target of sanctions against individuals,
we must seriously consider removing some of the sanctions
imposed on Zimbabwe and provide assistance to ensure success.
I urge us to consider how we can make that happen. That is
what this hearing is about, to explore the opportunities for a
new way forward, and that is what we continue to try to focus
on, a way forward, and how we can guide our policy in Zimbabwe
so it makes it a very difficult challenge to try to separate or
segregate or move forward when we still have remnants of ZANU,
which still has a very strong fist that is pounded daily.
Unfortunately, there is no government panel this morning.
The Senate has yet to confirm Ambassador Johnny Carson as
Assistant Secretary of State, and the State Department felt
that USAID should not testify today. So we are anxiously
awaiting the State Department to finally get a Department so
that we can move forward on some of these very, very difficult
issues.
Instead, we have a distinguished panel of private
witnesses, and, therefore, we are not short for talent.
Carl Gershman is president of the National Endowment for
Democracy; Joy Mabenge is the democracy and governance officer
for the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe;
Nicole Lee is the executive director of TransAfrica Forum; and
the Honorable Lorne Craner is president of the International
Republican Institute.
We welcome each of you. We look forward to your testimony,
and I will introduce you very thoroughly after we hear opening
remarks from my colleague from New Jersey, our ranking member,
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for calling this hearing, and good morning, everybody. It is
good to see so many good friends on the panel and for many
years in the fight for human rights and democratization around
the world, including in Zimbabwe.
We are all familiar with the sad reports from Zimbabwe, the
world's fastest-shrinking economy, where prices are known to
double every 24 hours. This week, the IMF released new figures
measuring inflation at 500 billion percent and economic growth
at a negative 14 percent last year.
Such numbers cannot convey the tragedy, however, lived by
millions of Zimbabweans. Until relatively recently, Zimbabweans
lived in one of the most prosperous African countries, but,
right now, millions of Zimbabweans know only hopelessness,
poverty, mass unemployment, and the breakdown of healthcare and
education.
The mass immigration of some 3-4 million Zimbabweans
underscores the dire situation and suffering caused by economic
failure. This is not the result of accidental misrule or weak
government in chaotic conditions but of Robert Mugabe's
determination to ruthlessly pursue total control over his
country.
This has been about political control. Mugabe is a declared
admirer of the North Korean Juche system, and his violent
harassment of the opposition, courageous human rights activists
and journalists, includes torture.
Mugabe has also pursued economic control. According to the
Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, in 2009,
Zimbabwe ranked 178th, right behind Cuba and right in front of
last-place North Korea.
While Mugabe and his ZANU-PF Party have not been able to
achieve the same control over Zimbabwe as the Kim family has
over North Korea, Zimbabwean civil society and human rights
activists have heroically organized themselves in opposition to
Mugabe. They have understood for years that the only way
forward for Zimbabwe will be to free itself from Mugabe and the
criminal elements of ZANU, and after too many years of
tolerating, and even lauding, Mugabe's rule, the international
community seems to have come to the same conclusion.
Since Mugabe and his hard-line security chiefs have not
given any signs that they will not go peacefully, a gradual
solution seemed best. We all hope that the power-sharing
agreements with Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) creates a new situation in which ZANU
would have to loosen its choking grip on the country.
But after several months of promising reports of the work
of the MDC ministers, only yesterday, we read reports that some
18 opposition leaders and activists will be rearrested. I am
informed that the decision to rearrest has been reversed, but
ZANU's continuing abuses cast a shadow over the Unity
Government.
I look forward, again, to our hearing and especially to the
insights provided by our distinguished panel of witnesses and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Today, we are pleased to be joined by our distinguished
panel--Mr. Gershman, Mr. Mabenge, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Craner--to
discuss the current situation in Zimbabwe and opportunities to
support democracy there.
First, we have Mr. Carl Gershman. Mr. Gershman is the
president of the National Endowment for Democracy, a private,
congressionally supported, grant-making institution with the
mission to strengthen democratic institutions around the world
through nongovernmental efforts.
In addition to presiding over the Endowment Grants program
in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the former
Soviet Union, and Latin America, he oversees the creation of
the Quarterly Journal of Democracy, the International Forum for
Democracy Studies, and the Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows
program.
In 1999, Mr. Gershman took the lead in launching the World
Movement for Democracy in New Delhi, which is a global network
of democracy practitioners and scholars. Mr. Gershman is
currently encouraging other democracies to establish their own
foundations devoted to the promotion of democratic institutions
in the world, and they have been extremely successful in moving
democracy forward, even in a number of the former Warsaw Pact
countries behind the Iron Curtain, and, of course, in new
democracies in Latin America, Africa, and in Asia.
Next, we have Mr. Joy Mabenge. Mr. Mabenge political
economist currently working for the Institute for a Democratic
Alternative for Zimbabwe (IDAZIM) as democracy and governance
program manager. IDAZIM is a think tank currently working on
five critical areas dealing with the transition in Zimbabwe,
including democracy and governance, the economy in transition,
transitional justice, international relations, and is setting
up a multi-university, virtual Leadership Academy.
Prior to joining IDAZIM, Mr. Mabenge was the executive
director of Zimbabwe's Coalition on Debt and Development
(ZIMCODD), a social- and economic-justice movement, where he
worked for 8 years.
Mr. Mabenge is a committed human-rights and social-justice
activist, having served in the National Constitutional
Assemblies in Zimbabwe, a movement pushing for people-driven,
constitutional-making reforms in Zimbabwe since 1997, both as
regional chairperson for the Harare Province from 2001 to 2006
and then national advocacy chairperson from 2006 to 2008.
Mr. Mabenge sits on various governance structures of civil
society organizations in Zimbabwe, including the Crisis in
Zimbabwe Coalition, Students Solidarity Trust, and the Mens'
Forum on Gender. He holds a master's degree in development
studies--political economy from the University of Manchester's
Institute for Development Policy and Management, a University
of Zimbabwe's post-graduate diploma in project planning and
management, preceded by undergraduate studies in political
science and administration. He is a British Chevening
Scholarship alumnus.
Next, we have Ms. Nicole Lee, the executive director of
TransAfrica. She was appointed to this position in December
2006 by the board of directors, led by Chairman Danny Glover.
As executive director of TransAfrica Forum, Ms. Lee often
travels abroad, not only to the African continent but also the
countries with large Afro-descendant populations, such as
Brazil, Venezuela, Haiti, and Colombia. She spends her time
interacting with people on the ground and then conveys their
concerns about human and political rights issues to U.S.
politicians, policy-makers, and other agencies whose work
impacts on the global African population.
Ms. Lee earned a law degree from the University of Buffalo
and served as an International Law Fellow. She interned in
South Africa, working on environmental class-action suits.
After graduating from law school, she moved to Haiti, where
she worked for a human rights organization that investigated
and prosecuted the human rights violations of the military
during the 1994 coup in Haiti.
Returning to the United States in 2004, Ms. Lee also worked
as a lobbyist in Washington, DC, eventually serving as director
of operations at TransAfrica Forum. Ms. Lee is the first female
executive director of TransAfrica Forum, an organization which
promotes justice, progress for the international African
community, and, I guess, now gender rights, too. Ms. Lee's
passion for human rights and activism has propelled her to the
top of this great organization, which is, as we all know, a
leading advocate for human rights and democracy building around
the world.
Ms. Lee's opinion-editorials have been published in The
Nation, Tom Paine, theroot.com, Final Call, and she is a weekly
contributor to the National Newspaper Publishers Association.
Ms. Lee is a frequent guest on BBC, NPR, Pacifica Radio
Network, ``Democracy Now,'' and the ``Tavis Smiley Show.''
Finally, we have the Honorable Lorne Craner, current
president of IRI. Since Mr. Craner returned to the IRI,
International Republican Institute, as president in 2004, he
has led the strengthening of IRI's programs in countries, such
as Afghanistan, Colombia, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iraq.
Under Mr. Craner's leadership, IRI has broadened its work in
governance, women's participation, access for the disabled, and
the use of technology in democracy promotion and program
evaluation.
IRI has also built an unprecedented level of cooperation
with U.S. and foreign democracy-building organizations, and the
IRI held its two most successful fundraisers since Mr. Craner's
return.
Previously, Mr. Craner was assistant secretary for
democracy, human rights, and labor for Secretary of State Colin
Powell. Among other accomplishments, he initiated the first
U.S. Government program to advance democracy in China, helped
construct the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Good
Governance Criteria, sharpened the administration's focus on
human rights in Central Asia, and contributed to the conception
and implementation of the administration's approach to
democratization in the Middle East.
Upon his departure, Mr. Craner received the Distinguished
Service Award, the State Department's highest honor, from
Secretary Colin Powell.
In 1995 to 2001, Mr. Craner, as IRI's president, led the
institution to new levels of programmatic achievement, fund-
raising, financial accountability, and news coverage. He joined
IRI as vice president of programs in 1993.
From 1992 to 1993, he served at the National Security
Council as the director of Asian affairs under Brent Scowcroft,
and, from 1989 to 1992, he was deputy assistant secretary of
state for legislative affairs during James Baker's tenure.
Mr. Craner was Senator John McCain's legislative assistant
on foreign policy from 1986 to 1989. He began his career as the
then-Congressman Jim Kolbe's foreign policy LA, and Mr. Kolbe
ended up as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for
Foreign Ops.
In June 2007, Mr. Craner was again confirmed by the U.S.
Senate to a seat on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's
Board of Directors. Mr. Craner is also on the boards of the
National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, the InterNews
Network, and the policy board of the University of Michigan at
Ann Arbor's Weiser Center for Emerging Democracies.
A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he has
testified, on numerous occasions, before the House and Senate
committees.
Mr. Craner received a master's degree from Georgetown and
his undergraduate degree from Reid College.
We certainly have people who are well qualified, and we
will begin now with Mr. Carl Gershman.
STATEMENT OF MR. CARL GERSHMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
FOR DEMOCRACY
Mr. Gershman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, and Mr.
Royce, all good friends of the NED. I want to thank you for
inviting me to testify on what can be done to advance democracy
in Zimbabwe, and also I want to thank the committee, on the
occasion of the NED's 25th anniversary, for its bipartisan
support over these many, many years. I would like also, Mr.
Chairman, to thank you, personally, for your 9 years of service
on the NED Board and also for all that you do for democracy and
for Africa.
My testimony this morning is going to be based not just on
our own analysis of what is happening but also I would like to
reflect the views of our many grantees in Zimbabwe, well over a
dozen grantees, groups like the National Constitutional
Assembly and the Zimbabwe Elections Support Network, and many
others, and what they have to say about the situation.
Though President Mugabe has said that nothing has changed
in Zimbabwe with the Global Political Agreement, there are
clear signs that the country is beginning to recover
economically and that the public mood has shifted.
We support a group called the Mass Public Opinion
Institute, which just released a poll saying that some 70
percent of the respondents described the country's economic
condition as better than the previous year, and 82 percent felt
that the economic condition would be better a year from now. So
there are expectations. There is hope.
At the same time, we know that the ZANU-PF has retained its
hold on the levers of power: The ministries of police, army,
judiciary; broadcast media, daily newspapers, and so forth.
Last week, Tendai Biti--I know you met with him as well,
Mr. Chairman--spoke at the National Endowment for Democracy and
he talked about the corrupt hardliners within the ZANU-PF who
are trying to sabotage the reforms that were committed to in
the National Political Agreement. He referred to them as
``catfish,'' preferring to lie in the mud of corrupt patronage
rather than try to move toward reform.
So we know that there are these problems and that these
issues are reflected in the press every day.
Just yesterday, Nelson Chamisa, the spokesman for the MDC,
threatened to withdraw from the government if Judge Cheminda
did not reverse her decision to withdraw the bail and
reimprison the 18 democracy activists, including Justina
Mukoko, and to allow them to be free on bail. She did reverse
her decision.
At the same time, the MDC has issued an ultimatum that if,
by Monday, they cannot reach an agreement over Mugabe's claim
that he has the unilateral authority to appoint provincial
governors, permanent secretaries, and to remove the Federal
bank governor, Gideon Gono, that they are going to convene the
highest-decision-making body a week later to consider whether
or not they will stay in the government.
So this is a struggle that is going on as we speak, and it
could go either way, but I think there really is no alternative
to try to move forward and to try to make this agreement work,
looking toward the constitutional reform process and then the
elections in 2011.
Mr. Smith mentioned North Korea, and Mr. Royce and I have
worked a lot together on North Korea. Not only is Zimbabwe
different from North Korea, but it would be inconceivable to
imagine this kind of a power-sharing agreement in a country
like Burma, for example, or Cuba, or even a country like Egypt.
So there is an opportunity here, however difficult it is,
and I think we simply have to move forward.
In the testimony that I submitted this morning, Mr.
Chairman, we presented you with six recommendations, some of
which pertain to exactly your point in your opening statement.
The first has to do with human rights, and the government,
in our view and in the view of the grantees that we support,
obviously needs to release the remaining political prisoners
and review all of the pending cases and establish a commission
to review judicial appointments as the first step toward
establishing a genuine rule of law.
It is very important to develop an inclusive and
transparent process of constitutional reform, including the
establishment of an independent and impartial election
commission, as recommended last week in a report by the
Zimbabwe Elections Support Network and the Electoral Institute
of Southern Africa.
This process should be a people-driven process, not just
done by the elites in the country. The National Constitutional
Assembly has called for an all-stakeholders' conference to
determine the appropriate structures and procedures for the
constitutional process, and it will include representatives
from government, political parties, trade unions, business,
churches, traditional religious groups, women's groups, youths,
farmers, veterans, traditional leaders, media, the diaspora,
and the broader civil society.
This Stakeholders' Commission should undertake extensive
consultation with the people, compile and disseminate a draft
constitution that could be presented in the National
Referendum.
Civil society needs to be supported. The ban on pro-
democracy, nongovernmental organizations should be lifted.
Civil society plays a critical role in serving as a channel of
communications between the government and the people and also
as a countervailing power to the authoritarian forces within
the state. There is, obviously, great concern with the
precedent, in 1987, of the Unity Accord, where the ZANU was
able to absorb Joshua Nkomo's ZAPU, and people are very worried
about that, and civil society plays a critical role in
preventing that.
It is very important to foster independent media, to lift
the restrictive media laws, including the Access to Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, to begin to develop the capacity
for independent newspapers and broadcasters and to improve
access to state-controlled media, easing the availability of
operating licenses and providing assistance to enhance
independent media in the country.
The fifth issue is a very critical one in all transitional
countries, which is the whole question of establishing a
process of transitional justice, how to deal with crimes of the
previous regime. There are people, obviously, strong voices in
the civil society, that are arguing for retributive justice,
truth seeking, and, as the head of the ZED CTU said, ``Leading
a fight against the culture of impunity.''
At the same time, recent post-conflict transitions confirm
the difficulty and the delicacy of securing an appropriate and
equitable balance between justice and reconciliation, and there
is a dilemma, of course, that, with elections expected to
follow the constitutional reform, in 2011, the prospect of
prosecution gives an incentive to culpable members of the
ruling elite to sabotage the process.
A CRS report recently noted that Mugabe and other senior
officials may resist a peaceful exit from power if they fear
subsequent prosecution.
I think that Zimbabweans should look at the experiences of
other countries that have dealt with this process. Maybe a
panel of experts could be established to examine similar
transitional-justice processes in post-conflict societies to
determine the most appropriate measures and mechanisms to adopt
in Zimbabwe.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, in relation to your main point,
the issue of economic assistance to Zimbabwe at this critical
period, in the absence of genuine reform, the international
community has, understandably, been reluctant to release funds
for the Government of National Unity, yet the legitimacy and
credibility of democratic reformers within the government will
largely depend on its ability to restore not only the economy
but also basic services and living standards.
Consequently, there is a compelling case to be made, in our
view, for a more creative approach to funding that targets
specific needs, bypasses corrupt or partisan institutions like
Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, keeps targeted sanctions like travel
bans and asset freezes, and assists both the Zimbabwean people
and reform-minded elements within the government with the
process of economic recovery and reconstruction.
This humanitarian-plus approach, whereby purely
humanitarian aid is complemented by support for reconstruction
in areas of education and health, infrastructure, water
sanitation, food security, and governance will provide a major
boost to reformers within the government.
The chances for realizing the commitments of the Global
Political Agreement, developing genuine power sharing and
initiating meaningful constitutional reform leading to free
elections, will, of course, be dependent on political will,
and, in the end, it is the people of Zimbabwe who must grapple
with solutions to the many problems they face. But it is also
imperative that the United States and the entire international
community be engaged, as fully as possible, in supporting the
forces of democratic reform, economic recovery, and sustainable
political stability.
There is now an opportunity for Zimbabwe to move forward
after a terrible period of trauma, and I think this opportunity
should be seized. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gershman
follows:]Gershman deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Mr. Mabenge?
STATEMENT OF MR. JOY MABENGE, DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE OFFICER,
INSTITUTE FOR A DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE FOR ZIMBABWE
Mr. Mabenge. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
request that the entirety of my statement, along with
additional material, be submitted for the record.
Mr. Payne. Without objection.
Mr. Mabenge. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and
representatives of various stakeholders, it is, indeed, a great
honor for me to appear before this distinguished committee to
give testimony on ``Zimbabwe: Opportunities for a New Way
Forward.''
I am strongly inspired, Mr. Chairman, by my daily
experience, in which I see my country move toward relative
stability.
Mr. Chairman, I am equally worried by the grave human
insecurities that we still face as citizens. Since the
inception of the Transitional Inclusive Government, in February
2009, I have seen real opportunities for the restoration of our
dignity and human rights.
I am informed by the realities that I witness as a
democracy and governance manager in my organization, IDAZIM.
Mr. Chairman, almost 3 months into the life of the inclusive
government, tragic realities are still with us. Coupled with a
number of outstanding matters agreed to by the three political
parties, as well as breaches of the Agreement by Mr. Mugabe's
party, the skepticism informing the donor community remains
real.
Mr. Chairman, it is not all gloomy in the country. However,
the current state of affairs presents a window of opportunity
for a new way. That today marks exactly 84 days since the
formation of the Transitional Inclusive Government is, in
itself, a miracle.
The political landscape, Mr. Chairman, is, however,
shifting. Political, pro-democracy groups are enjoying
unprecedented control of key democracy leverage in institutions
and policy processes. We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that the
former opposition, the MDC-T and MDC-M, control the Lower House
of Parliament. The MDC-T has the speakership of this very
important part of the legislature.
In local government, the MDC-T and MDC-M formations control
54 out of 88 local government authorities. ZANU-PF controls 34.
Thus, with the control of all urban councils, the MDC is now in
charge of local government in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Chairman, on the balance, events in Zimbabwe are
tilting toward pro-democracy groups. These gains need to be
protected, defended, and consolidated.
A key challenge to the unity government, however, is lack
of fiscal resources. Last week, the Prime Minister, Hon. Morgan
Richard Tsvangirai noted that he inherited empty treasury
coffers. In the absence of a meaningful economic stimulus, the
government is broke and cannot afford to provide critical
services and payment of civil service salaries.
With manufacturing and industry at an all-time low, there
is no internal capacity to address the country's resource gap.
As such, Zimbabwe is in urgent need of international support of
at least, U.S. dollars, $8.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, that 84 days later, the inclusive government
continues to struggle to raise the financial resources required
to get the economy back on the path of recovery, beyond
humanitarian assistance, so far availed, is a deep worry. Civil
servants amongst them, our very important academic and teaching
staff, continue to be paid an allowance of USD $100 across the
board. Trade unions are beginning to break rank and demanding a
minimum range of USD $450.
The possibility of a nationwide strike is real. This plays
directly into the hands of hardliners who are looking for
opportunities to demonstrate that the unity government is a
farce and to roll out the machinery of force to quell any
potential disruptions to public peace and security.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the current common position
among most donors, multilateral or bilateral, is based on the
attainment of specific benchmarks to be met by the new
government in Zimbabwe before aid can be extended beyond the
current humanitarian assistance.
Mr. Chairman, these benchmarks are necessary but
insufficient in moving Zimbabwe to full democracy via the unity
government transitional route. Delays in aid have the potential
of undermining people of confidence in the capacity of delivery
of the government of national unity.
Mr. Chairman, my paper speaks to the level of contribution
that has been done by the U.S. Government.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the new administration of the U.S.
Government to stop looking for stability factors but to begin
to see stability factors, as any delay may have unintended
consequences and play into the hands of those of the old guard
itching to have this opportunity wrecked.
Mr. Chairman, I note here that our considered opinion is
for the U.S. Government to shift policy from smart sanctions
toward targeted cooperation and smart assistance. I am
recommending smart assistance in the form of rewarding, through
targeted assistance, key drivers of democratic reforms. In this
regard, Mr. Chairman, targeted sanctions, especially against
those individuals and entities that continue to work against
democracy and the rule of law must remain in force.
Mr. Chairman, democratization is a process and not an
event, and the U.S. Government should find new ways of
supporting progressive components of the inclusive government.
Mr. Chairman, let me illuminate, through an example from
last year. In the face of critical elections and opportunity,
the donors contributed resources to enable civil society groups
and citizens to monitor and observe our elections across the
country. Close to 10,000 election observers were deployed by a
budget provision of a modest USD $3.4 million. Of these
observers, a significant number were teachers in rural and
isolated areas, men and women devoted to investing education so
that future generations are not lost.
In the violence that characterized the aftermath of the
elections, many of these teachers had their schools, homes, and
even identity documents destroyed. Many of those affected were
young women who were gang raped in a time of HIV/AIDS. Today,
they are asking the government they helped to bring to power
for a living wage. This is one strategic area where the donors
can make tangible progress. By getting education going again,
getting young girls back in class means they will not be
victims of sexual trafficking and predatory practices so
prevalent in our unequal society. I think we are in a moment of
opportunity, and your leadership is required.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I remain
grateful and humbled by your invitation for me to testify
before this distinguished subcommittee. Zimbabwe is at a
crucial moment. It is the moment to save it or see it recede
into the anarchy that I shudder to see repeated after the orgy
of violence that we witnessed last year. I look forward to
responding to questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabenge
follows:]Mabenge deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Ms. Lee?
STATEMENT OF NICOLE LEE, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSAFRICA
FORUM
Ms. Lee. Good morning.
Mr. Payne. Good morning.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, esteemed members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on a new
way forward for Zimbabwe. My remarks here today are a summary
of our written testimony submitted to the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, exploration of the new approaches for United
States policy toward Zimbabwe is long overdue. The situation in
Zimbabwe remains extremely unstable. Since the February 2009
the swearing-in of the new Government of National Unity, there
has been some slowing of the country's economic decline as new
fiscal policies take effect. Today, the United States and other
Western nations are challenged to discern how to best support
Zimbabwe's forces for change.
The policy approaches of the past are not the appropriate
tools for the present and, in fact, are likely to undermine the
very actors that need our support. Negotiations have led to an
inclusive government which joins the parties headed by Morgan
Tsvangirai, as Prime Minister, with his former rival, President
Robert Mugabe. The new government, transitional in nature, is
responsible for developing a new constitution and for holding
fresh elections in 2 short years.
A full analysis of the elections and their aftermath is
contained in the TransAfrica Forum's 2008 report, Zimbabwe: A
Dream Deferred, which has also been submitted for inclusion in
the record.
The violence following the March 2008 elections was
extremely widespread. The atrocities included thousands of
beatings, destruction of property, and forced participation in
ZANU-PF political meetings. The worst of the ruling party's
violations are unequivocally crimes against humanity.
The evidence of abuse continues as recently as yesterday,
when Zimbabwean courts ordered, and the rescinded the order,
for the detention of 17 previously released Zimbabwe civil
society and opposition activists. The arrests are the latest in
a series of acts of intimidation, including extralegal
abductions undertaken by Zimbabwe's military and security
operatives designed to undermine the current government of
national unity.
The prospects for restraining the security sector are
unclear. Repressive laws and structures remain in place.
Members of the security forces who participated in the abuses
remain on the government payroll.
The health of the general population remains a major
concern. The most visible sign of the collapsed healthcare
system has been the cholera epidemic. Almost 90,000 cases were
reported, resulting in nearly 4,000 deaths.
The country's formerly stellar education system has ceased
to function, resulting in a lost generation of youth who have
not had access to education for prolonged periods, and
approximately two-thirds of the country relies on food relief.
Hunger remains a threat due to the collapse of the
agricultural sector, which, in the example of the terrible
harvest of 2008, left millions of people in need of food
assistance, and though the April 2009 harvest was better, the
limited purchasing power of the urban households continues to
constrain their food access.
In addition, Zimbabwe is heavily indebted, with
approximately $5 billion owed to multilateral financial
institutions. The country's $1.4 billion in arrears leaves it
ineligible for loans, thus, today, the country is bankrupt.
This new unit government is hamstrung by the legacy of
corruption, lack of accountability, transparency, and
mismanagement. These problems can only be overcome by
maintaining momentum toward a genuine democracy. This requires
support for its short-term, emergency-recovery program.
TransAfrica urges the Congress and the executive branch to
adopt the following course of action: First, to expand support
for democracy and governance programs. In 2008, USAID provided
human rights, trade union, election monitoring, and reporting
on the election process. These resources were critically
important. As the focus of activity moves from election-related
activities to the difficult task of rebuilding democratic
structures, broad support for community-based organizations is
essential.
Second, we need to continue humanitarian support, including
food delivery and HIV/AIDS medication. Again, while the 2009
harvest increased the level of food supplies, Zimbabwe remains
food insecure. The country will continue to need food
assistance for some time.
Thirdly, the appointment of a special envoy. U.S.
Ambassador McGee has received high marks for his work in
Zimbabwe. However, the regional nature of this crisis requires
a comprehensive approach that can only be accomplished through
the appointment of a U.S. Special Envoy with a mandate to
engage the government, the U.N., multilateral agencies, as well
as various civil society actors working throughout the region.
Fourth, support a debt audit. Civil society groups in
Zimbabwe have long called for an audit of Zimbabwe's debt.
Currently, most debt analysts believe that the majority of the
country's debt is largely odious, highlighting the need for a
thorough audit. Additionally, a comprehensive audit could
reveal not only the status of bi- and multilateral loan
agreements but could also uncover evidence of fraud and
mismanagement.
Fifth, contribute to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund. The
recently announced Multi-Donor Trust Fund is administered by
the United Nations Development program, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the African Development
Bank. It works in coordination with the inclusive government to
ensure payment of the country's prioritized expenses.
The trust fund will provide payment support for the
following economic and social-development activities: Monthly
stipends to those providing essential social services;
rehabilitation of physical infrastructure; audit of the civil
service; technical support for small-holder farmers; credit
mechanisms for commercial farming; industrial development and
small business development; and the training for the reform of
the security sector and civil society structures oriented to
the community.
Certainly, there are risks involved in providing support to
Zimbabwe's economic development. As human rights activists and
researchers point out, the fundamental systems of repression
and corruption remain in place.
In addition, the MDC, while a recipient of the majority of
the vote, remains a minor player in the inclusive government.
ZANU-PF retains control of the security sector, while MDC
is responsible for the massive economic mess and its
reconstruction, but be that as it may, for those committed to
supporting a democratic result in Zimbabwe, a fundamental
question is, given these circumstances, what is the best course
of action?
The strategy of donor nations has been to facilitate the
collapse of the country's economy, expecting that Mugabe and
ZANU-PF would, in turn, collapse, and while Mugabe has been
move to the negotiating table, he has not fully conceded power
and retains a level of support amongst the population. In this
uneven playing field, donor nations demand that the inclusive
government produce concrete evidence of change, yet the change
agents are handicapped by both a lack of access to resources,
as well as the intransigence of the Mugabe forces.
Targeted support that prioritizes the needs of the most
vulnerable, is transparent and accountable, and is framed by
priorities outlined in the short-term economic recovery program
is one reasonable way forward.
TransAfrica does not make these recommendations likely. The
conditions in which Zimbabweans find themselves, and the
prospect of deeper decay and disruption, require a change.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you
for this opportunity to share TransAfrica's vision for
Zimbabwe, and we look forward to working closely with you to
reestablish Zimbabwe as a self-sufficient, thriving democracy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee
follows:]Lee deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Craner?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR)
Mr. Craner. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. Your hearings are, as always, timely.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, that a unity government even
exists in Zimbabwe is a remarkable success, and there have been
hopeful signs over the last few months, but the Global
Political Agreement, the basis for the new government, is
imperfect, and the MDC must be vigilant against their
relegation to wholly junior partners by ZANU-PF.
On the plus side, the Finance Ministry, under the capable
leadership of MDC General Secretary Tendai Biti, has taken
significant initial steps to stabilize the free-falling
Zimbabwean economy.
In March, the government released its Short Term Economic
Recovery program (STERP) and, in April, officially abandoned
the Zimbabwe dollar in favor of the South African rand and U.S.
dollar. The government has recently begun paying civil servants
and teachers, and food is beginning to appear on the shelves in
stores, and humanitarian assistance is increasingly reaching
rural areas.
Politically, independent papers are beginning to return,
and a parliamentary committee has been appointed to draft a new
constitution to form the basis for new elections. We, at IRI,
have seen this political opening firsthand, as we have been
able to extend our work to include democratic activists outside
the Cities of Harare and Bulawayo, but with the government an
unholy marriage of contradicting interests, there remain huge
problems.
Daily headlines refer to boycotts of meetings, crisis
talks, and unilateral actions, all underscoring a lack of
commitment by the most hardline elements in the government to
the success of the inclusive government and, in some cases,
representing an active desire to sabotage it. The MDC treasurer
and nominated deputy agricultural minister, Roy Bennett, has
been charged with high treason and remains under house arrest.
President Mugabe unilaterally reappointed Gideon Gono as
director of the Central Bank and Johannes Tomana as attorney
general and announced that the ZANU-PF-controlled Transport
Ministry would take over the Ministry of Information, a
ministry held by MDC Spokesman Nelson Chamisa.
Although it has lessened, the specter of violence hovers
over Zimbabwe, particularly in rural areas, and, as we all
know, just this week, 18 human rights activists and MDC members
were rearrested after previously being released on bail.
Violent farm invasions and seizures continue.
There is no doubt that Zimbabwe is at a critical
crossroads. In the best-case scenario, the inclusive government
could succeed, the MCC could prove its ability to rule fairly
and effectively, and a new constitution could be created,
ultimately leading to transparent elections. But even setting
aside ZANU-PF intransigence, this is no small task.
At this important time, I think it is critical that the
U.S. continue to actively promote an environment receptive and
conducive to democratic reform. I would recommend the adoption
of five guiding principles.
Number one: Recognize that the inclusive government is an
imperfect and interim arrangement, a first step along the path
of a democratic transition. It is not, and never will be, a
fair representation of the wishes of the Zimbabwean people.
Economic stabilization and immediate relief of the humanitarian
crisis is of utmost importance, but the inclusive government
will have failed if it does not lead to a new constitution, new
elections, and new government.
Donors should, therefore, specifically consider monetary
support and technical assistance to facilitate the
constitutional-review process and the structuring and
depoliticization of the electoral commission.
The international community should also continue to support
the efforts of Zimbabwean NGOs and democratic activists who
will hold the inclusive government accountable to their
promises.
Of equal importance, pro-democratic parties must be given
the support they need to develop party structures to ensure
their continued competitiveness.
Second, successes should be measured locally. Though
perform at the national level is vital, its extent can only be
determined by the quality of its expansion outside the capital.
Those in rural areas have suffered most by ZANU-PF's abusive
patronage network. Support should be given to developing
efficient local government and helping reform-oriented mayors
and counselors, such as those referred to by Mr. Mabenge,
develop the skills to ensure that all Zimbabweans, and not just
ZANU-PF supporters, receive what they deserve.
Third, we have to accept Zimbabwe's political spectrum as
being fluid. The donor community has, rightly, exclusively
supported the MDC, but now the U.S. Government must be willing
to engage with moderate ZANU-PF elements and parties as they
emerge. Just as some former communists in Poland, the Czech
Republic, and elsewhere came to be democrats, there are, no
doubt, some ZANU-PF members who, through good motivation or a
desire for self-preservation, are now more committed to a
better future for Zimbabwe than the well-known hardliners. That
distinction must be made if we are to influence the former and
help neuter the latter.
Fourth, the SADC should be a leading force in resolving the
Zimbabwe crisis. South Africa and others have long argued that
the Zimbabwe crisis is an African matter requiring an African
solution. The U.S. and other Western donors have a role to
play, but SADC should take the lead in ensuring that the
substance and spirit of this agreement is carried out by the
unity government in condemning violations of the agreement and
in giving financial assistance necessary for the survival of
the agreement they helped create.
Fifth, and finally, our expectations have to be flexible
and manageable. The greatest challenge facing the MDC in this
inclusive government is the management of expectations. As the
party leadership is well aware, both the failings and the
successes of the inclusive government will be laid at the feet
of the MDC, regardless of responsibility. The donor community
must be sensitive to this and recognize that if the reformist
element of the unity government cannot deliver on basic
promises, their credibility will be shattered.
Though the international community should be rigidly
monitoring the performance of the inclusive government, it
should not rigidly attach itself to certain benchmarks. With a
fragile unity government, overly conditioning aid could scupper
progress in other areas. As alluded to previously, one way in
which the U.S. Government should pursue channels of assistance
is outside of the inclusive government, through local and
international NGOs.
Mr. Chairman, as the events of recent months have shown,
there is nothing predictable about Zimbabwe. The international
community is right to remain hesitant in its interactions with
the inclusive government, but I commend the committee, under
your leadership, for encouraging dialogue about avenues of
engagement.
The U.S. Government should, rightly, be cautious in its
methods of offering support, but to withhold all support would
be an unconscionable disservice to the people of Zimbabwe. We
must target support to lay the foundations for a better economy
and legitimate elections, allowing Zimbabweans to exercise
their long-denied right to be served by a government of their
own choosing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craner
follows:]Craner deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Let me thank each of the witnesses. You gave a
tremendous amount of very well-thought-out suggestions. This is
probably one of the most difficult, you know, situations before
us because it is perplexed on how do you move forward, as we
mentioned, without, you know, supporting the Mugabe regime and
the hardliners.
So it is very difficult, but I really appreciate each of
you with your suggestions, and I hope that someone from the
State Department is here. If not, we will certainly send this
very, very important testimony to them because I think it would
be very helpful as they move forward in attempting to come up
with a solution.
I should note for the record that Ambassador Johnny Carson
was confirmed last night by the Senate. However, we will have
to wait for him to be sworn in. I do not know when that will
be, but, at least, we are stepping toward putting the assistant
secretary of African affairs in place.
Let me begin by perhaps asking a question. As we know that,
prior to the establishment of the new inclusive government, the
U.S. Government predicted renewed nonhumanitarian assistance to
the Government of Zimbabwe by the government holding free and
fair elections, among other conditions.
Now, given that such elections are not expected to be held
for at least 2 years, under the terms of the Global Political
Agreement, the GPA, what interim conditions or benchmarks
should the United States consider before expanding its direct
engagement with the new government? I think all of you touched
on it a bit, but I just might ask each of you perhaps to
respond to that.
Mr. Gershman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good news
about Johnny Carson.
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Gershman. First is the issue of political prisoners,
most immediately, and the crisis that we have just been through
over the 18 democracy activists whose bail was revoked.
There has to be real progress, first and foremost, on human
rights and really starting to establish the rule of law. There
also needs to be progress, as I said, in really opening up the
media. That can be done now. Laws can be repealed, such as the
AIPPA law that I referred to in the testimony, to allow the
media to begin to function and allow NGOs to function legally
in Zimbabwe. That, too, is critically important.
But probably the most important thing right now has to do
with the constitution. The foundation for these elections, if
they are going to be successful elections, is going to be laid
in the negotiation of the constitution. It is not just the
content of the constitution which is critical and really
beginning to build into it checks and balances and beginning to
really have a strong Parliament and a strong Prime Minister to
balance the President and the Executive, but it is also the way
it is done. It is the process.
This process has to be an inclusive process. They have to
be consulting with the people, and, I think, if they do this
the right way, in the development of this constitution, which
should then be brought to the people, and they have 18 months
to do that; if they do it in the right way, it will be the
democratic experience. It will begin the process of healing
that has to go forward now, even as we speak.
So I think that is the most critical thing that can be done
now. There are many other challenges, there are many other
tensions here in a power-sharing agreement. One of the things
we know, Mr. Chairman, from the Dayton Accords, which we are
seeing right now, is what happens when you have a power-sharing
agreement that is negotiated to bring a conflict to an end but
which could contain the seeds of future conflicts, if there is
not progress made in resolving the fundamental, underlying
issues of crisis. That needs to be done now, while we have some
international momentum, while, I think, people are paying
attention to Zimbabwe, to encourage that process to move
forward, and where you have the prospect of conditioning
assistance on the development of the political will to address
these problems.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Gershman. Mr. Mabenge?
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The main wing of the
MDC, I understand they have given an ultimatum of Monday, the
Monday that is coming, for all outstanding issues to be
resolved.
I believe that if this ultimatum is real, and the
principals to the Global Political Agreement are sincere and
begin to move toward a resolution of all outstanding issues,
that is a clear benchmark of a new political will and
commitment to resolve the outstanding issues.
On the other hand, civil society organizations have
established a monitoring framework, and they continue to exert
pressure. For instance, I have issues that Mr. Gershman spoke
to, for example, the constitutional-making process.
The process itself and the content remain fundamental, and
I believe if the processes of civil society and the principals
to the Global Political Agreement are brought together, as we
begin to witness now, we may see a real shift and change in
commitment to the Global Political Agreement that may lead to
the international community seeing a bit of change and
commitment on the part of all the Zimbabweans committed to
this.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think benchmarks,
frankly, at this point in time, that would actually get us
where we want to be are quite illusive, in part because what we
see when we look at the past, our history of conditioning
assistance, we have not actually gotten the result that we had
hoped for.
We are in a situation now, certainly, where the GNU, as Mr.
Craner pointed out, is very important, and we have a situation
where, of course, we know those who have not upheld the rule of
law are the ones that actually have in their power rule of law
and security, whereas we see that the forces for change, if you
will, are really stuck with a financial situation that is
crippling.
What they need is a win. What the Finance Ministry needs is
to be able to actually show the Zimbabwean people that change
will actually reap tangible things that they need: Food,
healthcare, water.
So I think, as we talk about benchmarks, I think it is
important that we look at rule of law, but we also need to know
who we are dealing with and understand that the upper echelons
of ZANU-PF really have shown us that they can wait us out, but
the people of Zimbabwe, the average people, cannot.
So it is going to be important that, before the new
constitution, before the elections, they actually see that
there will be tangible changes and that the Finance Ministry,
that the MDC, can be a part of those tangible changes, and we
can help them with that.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. Mr. Chairman, I would say, I think there are
two issues here. One is the issue you raised about engaging
with the new government, and I think, essentially, that needs
to be on a sliding scale, depending on the progress of the
constitution.
I would also say, in terms of engagement, in terms of
assistance to Zimbabwe, we need to recognize that the
population has high expectations of this unity government, and
if reformist elements cannot demonstrate that they can
accomplish something, they will lose popular support, so we
need to be conscious of that as we move forward.
Mr. Payne. Just a quick other question. With the elections
in South Africa, it was felt that South Africa could have a
stronger influence on the Government of Zimbabwe, but because
of the style or Mr. Thabo Mbeki's philosophy, not much was
really done to push Mr. Mugabe. Perhaps he might say that there
would not be this coalition government if he had pushed too
hard, but do you see a new hope in the new ANC government?
Mr. Jacob Zuma has been a little more vocal about changes
that should be made in Zimbabwe. I just wondered what your
opinion is. Mr. Gershman? We will go right down the line.
Mr. Gershman. I do have some hope there. There have not
been any strong moves yet, but I do have some hope.
I notice, where, originally, South Africa was only going to
invite President Mugabe to the inauguration of Zuma, because he
is the head of state, and they said that they would only invite
heads of state, but, just yesterday, the director general of
the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Iyanda Nitza Lubah, said that
they are now considering inviting Morgan Tsvangirai, as well,
the Prime Minister.
I think that would be a very meaningful gesture by South
Africa, in the current situation, to invite Tsvangirai to the
inauguration. I think we should watch that and encourage it.
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think President
Jacob Zuma has been quite outspoken, again, as to abuses in
Zimbabwe. It is important to put a note to the fact that he is
now the chairman of SADC, and it is South Africa that has
committed about USD $80 million lines of credit toward
supporting the resuscitation of industry.
If Zimbabwe continues to look up to SADC and the rest of
the world for support, I see the South African Government
having leverage against any abuse of power within the Global
Political Agreement.
It is important here also to note that the SADC and the
African Union are guarantors of this Global Political
Agreement, and if the principals fail to resolve these issues
by Monday or by the end of next week, they have no option other
than to go back to SADC via the South African President, Jacob
Zuma, and I see Jacob Zuma not taking the route that former
President Tendai Biti took on quiet diplomacy.
Let me just end by saying, South Africa is not interested
in anything dramatic happening in Zimbabwe before 2010, so I
see South Africa being a bit more vocal in avoiding any
dramatic things, at least before 2010.
Mr. Payne. And 2010 is World Cup, for those who do not
know. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I agree with a lot of what has been
stated, but I would like to also state the obvious. The fact of
the matter is that some of the most powerful forces within the
ANC that brought President Zuma to where he is are demanding
that there be a new way, in terms of the policy between South
Africa and Zimbabwe, and they are demanding a more powerful
response.
The trade unions, for example, have really demanded a
powerful response and were very critical of President Mbeki's
role with Zimbabwe. So I think, in and of that, he was,
frankly, elected to really handle some of these regional
problems, and we have, on good authority, that he will.
Mr. Craner. Mr. Chairman, one of the things s I have
learned over the years is that it is one thing if the United
States hopes to see change in a region; it is helpful if Europe
also wishes to see it, but what really matters is if the
country's neighbors wish to see it.
I think the fact that we have a new leader in South Africa
who has not only said he wishes to see things move forward in
Zimbabwe, but I think it will be important that, as the great
regional power there, he is less negative and less of a drag on
wishing to see progress in Zimbabwe, and I think you will see
others come forth as a result.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask the panelists, political prisoners obviously
tell the story about how well or poorly any country is doing.
As most of us have said today, the rearrest, or the newest
perils being faced by the 18, raises serious questions about
that direction.
Jestina Mukoko, as I think everyone knows, is a tremendous
human rights activist, director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project.
She was arrested while she slept, reportedly, by 12 thugs,
armed thugs, who blindfolded her, made her kneel on gravel for
some 2 days, and made threats that if she did not cooperate,
she would be buried behind the police station.
She was released on March 2nd, was not formally charged
before this past Tuesday, and now is being charged with the
specious charge of terrorism. Could any of you give any
insights as to her dilemma and whether or not the human rights
community is raising her case, as well as the other cases, with
the kind of robust focus that it requires?
Mr. Gershman. Let me just say, Mr. Smith, that I believe
that the judge reversed her decision not just because of the
intervention by the Prime Minister; I am told that even the
President was forced to intervene with the judge because of the
international outcry over this and the realization of the
consequences that this would have. It became a major issue.
Obviously, these things have to continue to be watched
because it is sort of remarkable that the people being tried
are the ones who are the victims. This is a continuing outrage,
of course, but, at least, right now, they are on bail, and it
is because there has been an international outcry.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Let me, then, ask a question with
regard to human trafficking.
The State Department has placed Zimbabwe as a Tier 2 Watch
List, which is right below, or right next to, Tier 3,
``egregious violator,'' and they make the point, in the
narrative, that there has been an upsurge in exploitation. We
know that when there is a crisis, particularly a war or an
unsettled political situation, traffickers really exploit the
situation.
The number of victims, according to the State Department,
has significantly increased, and when you talk about
immigration flows or refugee flows approximating 3-4 million,
that situation is rife with peril for women, especially, but
for all who could be victims of trafficking.
Is the unity government taking any action that you have
gleaned to combat human trafficking? Would any of you like to
touch on that? Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Sure. Thank you. I think it is important to note
that, from the perspective of many in the unity government, one
of the things that will really quell trafficking is economic
assistance.
I mean, the truth of the matter is, we know that
trafficking is a problem. Trafficking certainly happens all
over the planet by force. People are certainly kidnapped, but
many times people are coerced, and, in the case of Zimbabwe,
what we are seeing is an inability for people to find
sustenance, for people to be able to get what they need, and
for people, frankly, to take care of their children and young
girls. What we see, of course, is people are lured into
situations where they are trafficked.
I think it is going to be very important that we look at
the trafficking situation in Zimbabwe from a holistic approach
and understand that the economy is very much entwined in what
is happening. So as we provide economic assistance, as we
ensure that the government can actually do its job in providing
what its people need, those situations will begin to take care
of themselves.
Now, certainly, it is a major issue, and it is not just
simply dealing with the economy, but certainly that is
something we need to look at.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. I think I referred, in my testimony, to the
need to focus our assistance to exactly those kinds of groups,
to the antitrafficking groups. Again, people involved in that
movement, if they are going to stay in it, need to understand
that things are going to get better under this unity
government, and if they do not see that, just as most people
will give up if they do not see humanitarian assistance, then
they, too, will also give up.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Anyone else? Ms. Lee, I would say,
obviously, poverty is a root cause, but a government does have
an affirmative obligation that, if it takes it, can mitigate,
although maybe not resolve and stop the above. There are rich
countries where trafficking is as bad as it is in impoverished
countries.
So I take your point, we need to attack that root cause,
but we need a mobilization; otherwise, more women and children
will be sold into slavery.
Let me ask, real quick, Mr. Gershman, you mentioned the
Mass-polling; the Public Opinion Institute's very encouraging
results with regard to the assessment of the people of Zimbabwe
looking forward. Seventy percent of the respondents described
the country's economic condition as better than the previous
year. How was that poll done?
Because we are running out of time with a vote that is
pending, what happens, and I would ask all of our panelists, if
the MDC, in the next week or so, or at any time, takes its
leave of the unity government? What happens? It seems to me
that that is a prescription for a catastrophic situation.
Mr. Gershman. The poll was conducted by the Mass Public
Opinion Institute, which works with the Afro Barometer, and it
was done scientifically. I asked the question, did they poll in
the rural areas, which are the hardest to reach--I think the
MDC is stronger in the urban areas--and, indeed, they did poll
in the rural areas. I think 65 percent of the people that they
polled were in the rural areas.
It seems like it was a very reliable and scientifically
done poll. They are now still reviewing the results. It will
formally be released shortly. The group is a grantee of ours.
We are in touch with them, and we have been free to release
these statistics that I have already, but I think it is a very
reliable poll, and it shows that there is a change that has
taken place.
Obviously, it has to do with the dollarization of the
economy and the control of inflation, and people are beginning
to get some resources, and their lives are beginning to
improve, but that means expectations are beginning to be
raised, and those expectations have to be met.
That is another reason why I think that you and Congressman
Payne are on the right track in trying to figure out a way to
reengage there.
Ms. Watson [presiding]. Mr. Boozman, do you have a
question?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. If I could, if the others would
like to respond.
Ms. Watson. Just a minute. We have about 8 minutes left on
the vote, and the chair plans to run down and come back.
So let me get to Mr. Boozman, and then the rest of you can
comment on Mr. Smith's question after he raises his, and I have
a question I will leave with you. The chair should be back in
time, and then I will come back.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairlady. Some have
suggested that Mugabe now is most concerned with the perception
of his legacy and that he would have stepped aside long ago if
not for the pressure of the ZANU-PF hardliners and military
generals that are concerned about losing patronage, losing
their ability to be in power.
What is the likelihood of Mugabe stepping down, at this
point, and, if so, if he were to vacate the presidency, who
would be his most likely successor?
Mr. Craner. Let me take a shot at this one. I think it is
up for a lot of guesses who would be his successor within the
ZANU-PF.
We have come to believe that there was a point at which he
actually did wish to cut a deal with MDC, but he was told by
his security--he was essentially being guaranteed immunity--he
was told by his security forces that they would not go along
with this because they were not being guaranteed any kind of
immunity, and, in fact, they threatened him with violence.
So this issue of transitional justice, I think, is going to
be very, very important and very, very delicate, and that is
going to be a judgment for the people of Zimbabwe to make.
Mr. Boozman. Do you all have any? Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Frankly, I would agree with that statement, and I
would just add to that that I think it is important to note
that, so often, when we have talked about the situation in
Zimbabwe, in the United States, we refer to Mr. Mugabe as being
really the only purveyor of human rights violations, and,
simply, we have found that not to be the case, that, clearly,
he is a part of a very, very intense network of people that
have a lot on the line when it comes to this unity government
and giving up power.
So we just need to be clear that we are dealing with not
just one person, not just one tyrant or one dictator; we are
dealing with a network of people who feel that they have too
much to lose in order to let this unity government succeed.
Mr. Boozman. The farm troubles, the land problems; I think
one could argue that that is a major cause of perhaps the
collapse of the economy, and then also many of the Black
Zimbabwean farmers working on the commercial farms being forced
off and being in poverty. How should we deal with the land
issue?
This is kind of where the rubber meets the road. Any ideas?
[No response.]
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Watson. I would like to follow up on that particular
question. I know that Mugabe has claimed to want to take back
the land that was originally there and taken over by the
English. In doing so, in taking the land back from the 1,000 or
so White agribusiness people, it cut off the funds that came in
from Great Britain. Therefore, there has been a collapse in the
economy, people are losing jobs, and so on.
There is a point at which you can discuss what is fair. Can
any of you comment on what you think would be fair, how we
resolve the problem of taking of the lands without
compensation? Where do we reach that middle point where we can
have fairness as a guide to solving this? Would you like to
take a swat at that one, Mr. Gershman?
Mr. Gershman. Well, in the most recent International Crisis
Group report, they did address this issue, and they called for
the establishment of a land commission with a clear mandate and
a strong technical basis, and it would be representative of a
large cross-section of the stakeholders, and they urged that a
comprehensive, transparent, and nonpartisan land inventory be
conducted to establish accountability and to eliminate
multiple-ownership claims and that there be international
funding to help, obviously, support a land-reform program.
So this is going to be one of the major challenges that
they are going to have to face, and they are going to have to
establish, as with other things like the constitution and the
electoral commission, balanced public bodies that are broadly
representative and that have some credibility and legitimacy
that can begin to establish approaches to these issues that are
consensual. It is very difficult, but that is the challenge
before them on many issues.
Ms. Watson. At 85 years old, do you think Mugabe is in the
right frame of mind? My observation of his behavior when we
were in that area, I guess, the year before last, at the end of
the year, I had a group, and we were at Victoria Falls, and I
was going to take my group over in Zimbabwe. I got a call from
the State Department, and they said, ``Do not go. We do not
want you to happen into any camera shots that might show
support for Mugabe.''
I did not go. I sent my group on, but, in watching him on
TV, he seemed to be really adamant in the fact that he was
going to take that land that was theirs, and so, at 85 and
celebrating his birthday, do you think there would be a glimmer
of hope, or will it take really an inclusive government to, at
least, make strides? Would anybody like to comment on that?
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you very much. I think some and many
believe that the Global Political Agreement is the only route
to Mugabe's exit. Some would want to call it a ``safe exit,''
and this is why many of us are saying this transitional route
must be managed to its logical conclusion, and part of the
question I am answering here also is a previous question on
what would happen if the GPA collapses?
If it collapses, it is quite clear, no one really knows
what would happen, but on the balance of probability, the
country would slide into anarchy. This is the very reason why
many people believe it is very important for Mr. Mugabe's exit
through the Global Political Agreement, and the transitional
arrangement must be managed.
However, I think it is important also to understand that
what may keep him on are the securocrats and, of course, the
internal fissures in his own party, most of which we may not
have control over.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Congresswoman Watson is
going to have to make the vote. Fortunately, we were able to
keep it rolling. I just have several questions left, and if any
of the others return, we can certainly hear from them on a
second round, maybe Mr. Smith. It looks like he will be back.
The MDC is responsible primarily, from what I understand,
for the economics of the country, more or less, and if any of
you may have your view on how the finance minister, Mr. Biti,
is going to be able--in other words, it is almost like they are
given the portfolio to fail since that is the weakest part.
It is not uncommon, though, that the stronger hand would
keep the security force and the military. It is not right, but
that is generally what happens in countries when there is a
transition. That is generally kept close to the leadership.
So maybe each of you could comment on what you see as the
possibility of the country being able to continue to survive
and how the financial portfolio of MDC, which, of course,
people might point to in an upcoming election, how do you see
them being able to kind of skirt through that?
Mr. Gershman. Well, as you know, Finance Minister Biti met
with the World Bank and met with others to try to really urge
economic assistance at this point, and I think that is the
direction you are moving in, if it can be done in the right
way.
We were visited, last August, by Nelson Chamisa, who was in
the country and came by, and he felt he was for the agreement.
In other words, there was a real issue of division within the
opposition over whether or not to negotiate this agreement, but
he was for it, and he felt that time was on their side, and I
think that is the critical thing.
There is a process that is unfolding right now, an 18-month
process on the constitution then leading to elections. Some 6
to 8 months after the elections--I think they will be at the
beginning of 2011--if people can see, as they are already
seeing, visible progress in their lives--it cannot get any
worse than the tens of millions of percentage points of
inflation that was there before, an economy in total collapse
and the diseases that were spreading in the country--it was
hard to get worse, and they are seeing hope right now.
If that can continue, and at the same time, through the
constitutional process, establish an election commission that
is really nonpartisan and can really revise the voter rolls and
really have a fair and internationally observed election, which
is possible, I believe, and if, during that time, you can also
deal with these issues of the hardliners and how to retire some
of the military people from politics, you have a chance for an
election, and I think that could be a breakthrough. I really
think that could be a breakthrough. So we have to see this as a
2-year process which is beginning to unfold right now.
Mr. Payne. Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Craner. I keep coming back to this idea that if the MDC
is part of the government, and things improve, the MDC will get
credit. Clearly, people saw the country go into an abyss when
ZANU-PF was running it, and I really think that needs to guide
our thinking and our concerns on this.
So I would say that while Tendai Biti starts to get the
economy back on track, which, I think, is a massive job, we
need to be looking at how we can be helping ordinary people in
Zimbabwe so they see signs of improvement from a government
that includes the MDC.
Mr. Payne. Yes, Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Finance Minister Biti, as well as many civil
society organizations in Zimbabwe, have been calling for what I
refer to in my testimony as the ``Multi-Donor Trust Fund,'' and
I think that this is very important and that the finance
minister was clear that this is key to his success.
I think one of the most important things we need to look at
in this is the purpose of this fund is really to keep the funds
out of the hands of those who we know are corrupt. They have
gone through pains to ensure that the World Bank, the IMF, each
and every multilateral donor entity, is involved and has
control over the funds, and also, at the same time, it provides
relief. It provides relief, in terms of humanitarian
assistance; it provides relief to civil society organizations
working on the ground to provide this assistance.
So I think that, in terms of how he seems to view his
success, it is really caught up in this Multi-Donor Trust Fund.
Mr. Mabenge. On the ground, the USD $100 allowance that has
been given to civil servants makes a huge difference to married
people who could not afford anything, and they attribute this
to the efforts of the Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development, and, of course, the coming in of the Prime
Minister within the inclusive government.
If this $100 is not improved into a real salary, we run the
risk of agitation within the rank and file civil servants. If
you go and ask an ordinary soldier if they feel relief, this,
then, brings me to the point that the unfortunate part is that
if we are going to go there, with the IMF and the World Bank
groups, Zimbabwe is in arrears of about $1.5 billion in unpaid
interest to multilateral and bilateral creditors, and there is
no possible that these arrears are repayable in the foreseeable
future, at least before we have elections, which is why it is
very important for the Ministry of Finance to begin to
negotiate a reschedule of debt repayments so that they can, at
least, continue to have the momentum that they have built go on
to the logical conclusion of democratization.
So it is my submission here that it would be very important
for the U.S. Government and other institutions to consider
moving a bit away from giving new loans toward financing of
arrears rather than toward financing of things that will make
people see a real difference in their lives.
Mr. Payne. The whole question of debt was something that
President Johnson Sirleaf from Liberia recently was able to
retire 50 percent of her debt through different mechanisms and
actually at the cost of three cents on the dollar, which I do
not even think Liberia paid that, but donors some way, and she
was able to reduce the US $4.7 billion to about two-point-
something.
So I do think that, in my opinion, once there can be a
government of reconciliation and people moving forward, the
question of external debt, I think, that donor countries and
international institutions will probably attempt to work toward
reducing that debt, in many instances, which would almost be
impossible to pay anyway.
Just a question on the split of the MDC, and perhaps, Mr.
Mabenge, you might be best equipped, and others, though, could
chime in. I think that, in 2005, MDC split into two parts, and
we tend to find that once an organization splits, it is
weakened; if they are united, they are stronger. How do you see
this split and whether MDC will work closer together, both
factions?
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In fact,
the events of 12 October 2005 were very unfortunate. Some would
argue that if we did not have these events, probably we would
not be talking about a transitional government. We would be
talking about a new government under the leadership of the MDC.
However, I think what has happened over the past is that
the two MDC formations have entered into a cooperative
agreement, and they call it a ``Parliamentary Cooperation
Agreement.'' That may not have played out quite well during the
election of the speakership of the House of Assembly, but, in
terms of critical matters, we see that the MDC, the former
opposition, voting quite together.
It is, again, unfortunate also, however, that the kind of
Parliament that we are going to have within the transitional
period is not going to be a very robust Parliament, as it is
going to be subjected to provisions of the Global Political
Agreement.
Our hope and wish, however, is that, as we move toward the
next election, the weaker part of the MDC would realize the
importance of rallying their support toward the main MDC
formation. This will, of course, depend on how they view their
partner, or how they view the other MDC, which we do not have
control over, but this is the hope of all Zimbabweans, that the
opposition, or the former opposition and the smaller parties,
will come together to deliver the final blow to what we have
witnessed over the years. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. In regard to the feeling on the part
of some that hardliners, we do not know because we are not
close to the Mugabe regime, but there are rumors that have some
of the hardliners who insist that Mr. Mugabe remain in office
because they are afraid that there may be prosecution if there
is a real turnover in the government, and there is always the
argument about people being held accountable for, you know,
past atrocities, the atrocities in the eighties when many
people were killed, what has happened that led up to even the
current situation.
It is always a pretty tough call, what do you do? We saw
where the LRA was even in the process of getting, you know, if
they had gotten along with the ICC, that all charges would be
dropped on Kony, which was something that I could never see,
but that kind of agreement had come up with the Government of
Uganda, although Kony has decided not to break off the
negotiations.
Like I said, that was something that I had a hard time--of
course, I do not live in Northern Uganda either, but I had a
hard time coming to grips with how are you going to just simply
allow Kony, even if his persons would be allowed to
reintegrate, you know, but he, himself.
So I say all that to say that, in South Africa, you had the
truth and reconciliation, which was extremely successful. Of
course, I think South Africa is pretty unique, you know. There
are not too many countries that have a Nelson Mandela, you
know, or a Bishop Desmond Tutu. You could not have a better
one-two team.
So South Africa is unique, and I do not know if you could
just take the South African model and say it could work
anywhere.
How do you see this playing out with perhaps a discussion
of what happens if we have true democracy, and charges are
brought up against the some of the military people and police
people? Should an agreement be made to maybe let Mr. Mugabe go
to Southeast Asia or something?
Does anybody have any idea, because I am sure that this is
a discussion that is going on with ZANU-PF people? It is only
exploration. We do not know that is for sure, but what are your
sentiments on this whole thing, because it is going to be key
once we try to come up with a final solution?
Mr. Craner. Mr. Chairman, having seen different examples of
this, I do not think that we are capable of prescribing a
solution for a country, any country.
I think what is important is that there have been enough
examples of this, in Latin America, the example you referred
to; in South Africa. We have got Central European countries
going through this issue of illustration.
There are enough examples to be able to bring people from
those countries to be able to show all of the sides in Zimbabwe
examples of how to deal with this, but, clearly, it is going to
have to be dealt with as part of a settlement because I do not
think there would be a settlement without this being addressed.
Mr. Gershman. Mr. Chairman, as you go forward with a
process like that, I think they will have to work out where
they draw the lines. I do not think there is going to be
impunity for people who really were engaged in terrible crimes
against humanity. That is hard to believe, and I do not think
there should be in those kinds of situations, but, you know,
the South African Commission was called the ``Truth and
Reconciliation Commission,'' not a ``Punishment and
Reconciliation Commission,'' not a ``Justice and Reconciliation
Commission.''
Now, this is the fundamental tension. In a way, there is a
certain tension between the democracy community and the human
rights community on an issue of this kind--it is not just
within the country--because people want to see a transition
succeed, but, at the same time, you have human rights
accountability, as we have all been talking about. What is
going to have to influence U.S. policy in the period ahead and
everybody's behavior are the trade-offs in a situation like
this.
A power-sharing agreement inherently involves trade-offs of
all kinds, and the bottom line, though, is, can it move forward
to begin to offer a new day for the people of Zimbabwe? I think
if it shows that prospect, I think the people who really want
to see everyone pay the price for crimes that were committed,
will see that maybe it is better to put that person off to
pasture somewhere, get them out of the way, so that the process
can continue.
It is very, very dangerous when you have people who feel
that they are going to suffer from all of this. They are going
to, no holds barred, do whatever they can to bring the whole
process down.
So it is very, very important to work to move this thing
forward. Obviously, this is a decision they have to make
themselves, but it is an area where I think there can be
international support and cooperation.
Mr. Mabenge. Mr. Chairman, our communities have been
severely traumatized, particularly between March and probably
September, with the signing of the Global Political Agreement,
and what these people are looking for is a formal process that
heals them.
They have lost confidence in political processes,
particularly elections, and I think what is beginning to
happen, what we have had that is beginning to happen, is the
process might have taken too long such that communities are
beginning to deal with it themselves. We have had recorded case
of those that were beaten up and had their properties taken
during this period beginning to hit back and demanding their
properties back.
So to say that the nation will wait any longer for justice
to be seen to be done, I think, would be almost disastrous. So
my submission here is, it will remain very critical to have a
carefully thought-out, transitional-justice process that is
going to deal with these issues.
I am not so sure how far back it will go, but these issues
have to be dealt with in order to instill confidence in
communities, particularly on political processes and elections,
if we all understand that the logical conclusion of this Global
Political Agreement is a free and fair election where no one
will be subjected to torture or beaten up or to submit.
So I think, within this framework, this is an urgent matter
that needs to be dealt with, and it has to be dealt with quite
carefully. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. And a part of this, of course, has to be the
rehabilitation of the security forces of the police, something
that we have seen done in countries in Africa sometimes not so
well, but to ensure that we, obviously, cannot throw these
people away. They are a part of the society, and they also have
been victimized themselves through, frankly, some choices that
they have made, but also the situation, the conditions, that
they find themselves in.
So it will be very important that SADC, but also the U.S.
Government, really supports rule-of-law programs and
rehabilitation programs at that juncture.
Mr. Payne. And then we can see if Representative Woolsey
would like to ask any questions.
Something that has not come up, but, as we all know, land,
as I did mention briefly in my opening remarks, has been an
issue, and, as you may recall, Mr. Mugabe raised the land issue
when he found that he was losing popularity and needed a good
issue to try to use as a political issue.
As you know, the Lancaster House Agreement said that there
would be stipends by Great Britain, primarily, but the United
States, partly said that we would help also, in, as we know,
was supposed to be a willing seller/willing buyer.
Of course, the land was then supposed to go to the war
veterans. Some stipend was given to the government. The Mugabe
government allegedly used the money to purchase some land, but
the land did not go to veterans, allegedly; it went to several
of his membership in the family, allegedly; to some political
supporters, and it was not the intent for the Lancaster House
Agreement that the land would go to political supporters and
cronies and family, thereby giving the excuse for Great Britain
to say, ``You did not do it right. Therefore, we are cutting it
off.''
I think they let him perhaps give him rope, so he hung
himself on the land issue so they could justify not going
through with it, which, I am sure, they did not want to go
through in the first place.
Where do we stand now on that issue, and if anyone has any
suggestions, and what is the current status of the land that
was taken in the last 5 or 6 years? We will ask anyone on the
panel, and that will be my last question. We will then turn to
the other persons who have not asked any questions.
Mr. Gershman. Actually, Mr. Chairman, while you were
voting, the issue did come up, and I just pointed out that the
International Crisis Group and others have called for the
establishment of a land commission which can do an inventory of
all of the issues and the competing claims. As you know, this
is a critical issue in many countries in Africa, Kenya among
them, and they need a fair process here, as in other areas, to
try to resolve these competing claims.
Mr. Craner. I will just say two things.
Number one, as Carl noted, this is an issue that has come
up in other countries, but it is not that unlike the property
issues that come up in many other countries, and some of them,
I am very familiar with. Nicaragua is still dealing with this
20 years after they began looking at the problem.
So, again, I think the examples of other countries can be
useful to Zimbabwe.
I would also say that we need to understand that, as well
as justice on this issue, there needs to be a consideration of
how the land is used and how it is contributing to the economy
of Zimbabwe, and that needs to be thought through in deciding
the allocation of this land.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. We will now hear from
Representative Woolsey from California.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed
the witnesses. I am going to ask a question that I hope is not
repetitive. I just do not know, but it reflects something I am
very concerned about.
With President Mugabe's fear of a free press, which is
legendary, and it, actually, I believe, can only be compared to
the worst regimes in our world's history, he believes he can
control the story and that, if he can do that, he can cling to
power indefinitely.
What I want to know, there is a story, and it is the story
of maternal and infant mortality that is very difficult to
cover up, I would think, domestically, in Zimbabwe. What are
the real statistics, if you know, and are they worsening, in
light of having crimes against humanity, certainly, the
youngest, the vulnerable mothers are going to be the first to
be affected?
But is there a difference in reporting domestically and
through the foreign press what are the statistics, and is this
something that can stand up and be used as an example of how
much is going wrong, or if there are improvements, because I
did not hear your testimony?
Ms. Lee. Ms. Woolsey, I apologize because I do not have the
statistics with me, so I will just have to speak kind of
anecdotally about it.
It is worsening, and it has been on the decline for some
time, and, at TransAfrica, many of our civil society partners,
many of the women's groups do report that it is the youngest
mothers that are experiencing just massive problems not only
during pregnancy but then after childbirth, and then, of
course, we have got an infant mortality rate that is also
skyrocketing that, you are right, is not being reported
appropriately.
Certainly, anecdotally, one of the problems we see is
hospital beds and the ability for people to get to hospitals,
and, when they arrive at hospitals, their ability to pay; the
ability for staff to deal with just the overwhelming--
certainly, we have torture victims going to hospitals, we have
people dying of cholera going to hospitals, and we then have
these mothers also sometimes walking a very long distance to
get to the hospital.
So, certainly, with the increase in the poverty, with the
increase in the lack of healthcare, water, and just sustainable
infrastructure, we are certainly seeing the most vulnerable, as
you said, in our population being affected.
Mr. Gershman. Ms. Woolsey, I would like to send to your
office an article that the NED published in its Journal of
Democracy, about 8 years ago, about this issue of infant
mortality.
One of the interesting things, and there is actually some
research on this, is that governments in the developing world,
which, even if they are poor, that have been able to establish
a rule of law and democracy have lower infant mortality rates,
and the infant mortality rate has actually been lowered through
a transition, than governments which are dictatorial.
The reason should be obvious. It is one of the arguments we
make about the instrumental purposes of democracy, which is
that a government that is accountable to the people is more
likely to want to address the needs of the people and to
address healthcare needs.
So there is some research on this. It is actually rather
interesting. Regarding the statistics, obviously, in a country
like Zimbabwe, where the state has such total domination over
the media, you are not going to get accurate statistics on an
issue like this, and that is one of the issues we raised in the
testimony, that you have to free up the press.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, then maybe, Mr. Chairman, we could put
that article into the record, once we get it. I would like to
receive it.
Mr. Gershman. I will get it to you today.
Mr. Payne. Without objection.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. If we expanded our funding for
infant mortality through international assistance, and if it
got to Zimbabwe, would it get to the mothers and the children?
Would it get to the right places?
Mr. Gershman. Well, again, all of that depends on the
issues we have been discussing this morning--if they can get a
system of a rule of law where a government is beginning to
address the real needs of the people and not just to hang onto
power.
You have had an economy of plunder. You have had a state
based on violence until now. We are talking about a fundamental
change in the system and how we, as Americans and working with
others, can be helpful in that process. That is, ultimately,
the only way to get at the problems you are talking about.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Witnesses.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Biti
said, when he came, that one significant change was that you
could wear an MDC sweatshirt in the community and not worry
about being pounced on by the police. I mean, that is a small
step for mankind, but maybe it is a bigger step than we think.
As a matter of fact, I even talked to some people around
the world in different places where they said that they never
wore anything identified with the U.S. in the past 7 or 8
years, but now that they wear an Obama T-shirt, you know, they
do not have to worry about being criticized. So maybe these
small things indicate, maybe that is a poll that we can use as
being substantial.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just preface my questions with an overall statement
about the continent of Africa and the ripe opportunity that I
think we have, as a subcommittee and a full committee, on the
reengagement with Africa.
Certainly, I do not discount the Millennium Account that
was highlighted in the last administration. Ms. Lee, as you
well know, your organization worked extensively on those
issues.
Certainly, I do not discount the continuing work that we
have done on HIV/AIDS, but I think now we can unshackle
ourselves, break the chains, and see the continent through
different eyes, eyes that do not only focus on the devastation,
the conflict, but what is the growth in the future, and for
those of us who read history books, we will not account for our
age to say, remembering the Zimbabwe of yesteryear, but we know
that it was rich in productivity, we know that it had an
excellent opportunity for agricultural growth and investment,
and we know the extent of the people.
I would make a statement that, as we proceed, I want to see
more and more of the African ambassadors on the Hill engaging
with Members of Congress, telling us who they are, their
country, and helping us frame forward-thinking initiatives. I
do not want the witnesses to think I am not going into what we
are discussing today, and I do not, in any way, think that
assessing the conditions is, in any way, looking backward. It
is, in fact, to try and move us forward.
But I have noticed the absence of presence. I do not know
if the Ambassador to the United States from Zimbabwe is in the
room today or maybe persons from the Embassy, but I can say to
you that it is time to get up and get going because we have, as
I said, close to 1 billion people--consumers, individuals who
need to use technology; individuals who, I believe, overall,
love democracy; who want to be unconflicted; who want to be no
longer the displaced persons within a state; no longer want to
be considered Darfurians who are in camps or Chad camps or the
conflicts in Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Forgive me for this, but I say this because you all are
experts.
So I want to extend my hand, as the chairman has done
consistently. The chairman showed himself well by confronting
the issues in Somalia in a way that they should be confronted.
How can we do better?
So I am energized to want to do better, and I would like to
see some proactive thinking around the collective body of
States. So if anybody is listening to this comment, I hope, if
they hear anything, the ambassadors from the continent of
Africa need to show up and be seen, not a criticism but only an
offer for the work that this committee can do under the
leadership of Chairman Payne.
Let me ask you, Ms. Lee, because you have been engaged in
this, about this question of the restoration of peace and
security. Is it real? Are we still seeing political oppression?
And help me understand better the role that President Mugabe is
playing juxtaposed against the new government. If there are
others that want to comment on that, I welcome you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the opportunity.
Certainly, we have seen changes, and Mr. Chairman did speak of
some of the changes that we have seen.
We do still see political repression on the ground. We have
spoken about what happened only yesterday, when 17 people were
rearrested, one of whom is an HIV-positive, single mother who
is just an amazing activist who was arrested and tortured only
months ago, and then she was rearrested on the same charges.
Now, one of the changes that we are seeing, frankly, is,
even though these 17 people were rearrested, because of
pressure from civil society groups, because of pressure from
the Prime Minister, we did see those arrests rescinded. That is
a change, but we still are seeing the security forces that are
still under the control of ZANU-PF, frankly, taking advantage
of their majority position.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did Mugabe then enter into the agreement
in good faith, or are we seeing an agreement of convenience,
and then what should be our position?
Ms. Lee. It has been TransAfrica's position for some time
that President Mugabe certainly is a factor. He is a player. He
is a part of the problems, but he is not the only part of the
problem that we need to consider.
Months before this actually broke in the U.S. media, we had
been talking to civil society groups that explained, Mugabe
really is not in control, the way people describe him being in
control. You do have this gang of ``15,'' however, who are the
security forces, the police force, who are in control of the
country.
So when we think about what is going on in Zimbabwe, it is
not just around this one person, although, certainly, he is a
focal point and someone that does need to be considered, but he
is not the only person.
So did he enter it in good faith? I think that we can
disagree on whether he did or he did not. Certainly, ZANU-PF
knew that they were going into a position where they were not
going to lose control of the security forces. They were handing
over an economy to the MDC that was in tatters, and, basically,
they know, as I stated earlier, that they can really ride this
out for a bit, which is why it is so important that we engage,
why it is so important that the U.S. Government really engages,
in attempts to rebuild the economy so that those that are very
interested in democracy, that really want transparency, can
actually prevail on this.
It could very well happen that this situation continues,
the country continues to decline, and yet people at the highest
echelons of ZANU-PF continue to, frankly, prosper.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I do not want to see that happen, and some
people say that Mugabe is the wedge in the door from the right,
right wing taking over.
Let me conclude my questions by saying this: I agree with
the idea of a special envoy. I think it is crucial. I think
they have been effective in the past, and, certainly, I would
like to engage on that issue, but I would like to conclude my
questions with a question that I would like all of you to
answer, and, Ms. Lee, you can answer last, which is, what is
the one fix that you would offer that we would need with
respect to Zimbabwe? And I will start with Mr. Gershman, and it
may be women and children, health, but one fix.
Mr. Gershman. Well, I think the critical issue that I
pointed to, after the release of prisoners, is the
constitutional process that is underway now. That has to be an
inclusive process, not just done by the political elites, but
it has to really involve the people and civil society
organizations.
If I may, just in 1 minute, Madam Congresswoman, just to
come back to your point about the African ambassadors and
telling the story of Africa, as the chairman knows, I recently
returned from a conference of African human rights defenders
from 45 African countries in Kampala, heroic people, and one of
the things I said to that conference is a story that is not
told in this country.
When the NED came into existence 25 years ago, there were
almost no African democracies. There were three very small
countries totaling 3 million people: Botswana, Mauritius, and
Gambia. Gambia is no longer quite a democracy.
Since the second liberation of Africa began in 1990, the
number of African countries that are considered either liberal
or electoral democracies, where they have basically free and
fair elections, even if they have some other problems, is now
just about half of the 48 sub-Saharan African countries.
This is a remarkable story, and the basic reason for this
is because of some fundamental change that has taken place in
Africa in the past 20 years, and that is an explosion of civil
society organizations, from women's organizations, human rights
organizations, civil rights groups, trade unions, and others,
working from the bottom up to try to pressure for democratic
change.
It is a story that needs to be told, it is not sufficiently
understood, when everybody is just focusing on Somalia, Darfur,
Ethiopia, as they should. I am not saying that they should not,
but the success stories like--obviously, we know South Africa,
but Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and so forth; these stories
have to be told as well, and I commend you for your calling
attention to this.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I thank you for expanding, and, boy,
do I see an opportunity for the United States and its civil
society, and I welcome that and look forward to working with
you. It is a wonderful story that should be told.
Doctor? I am calling you ``Doctor.'' I am sorry. Mr.
Mabenge?
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you very much. We realize that
democratization works best through supply-and-demand factors.
They are things, certainly, that Zimbabweans would have to do
that have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the
international community, and these are commitments to a truly
reflective, constitutional-making process, a process that is
truly inclusive, and this process, indeed, as Mr. Gershman
said, needs to be supported.
However, I will still maintain that there is a need to
ensure that we continue to direct financial resources toward
progressive elements of the inclusive government to ensure that
we have a soft landing of this transitional government into a
real democracy. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. I would say we need to pay attention to two
things, and one is the constitution because that is going to be
the basis for things really changing.
I think the other element we need to pay attention to feeds
into your comments before, and that is regional pressure.
Zimbabwe is not a good ad for Southern Africa. Other countries,
like Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique, and South Africa are, and,
to the extent with the new South African President, especially
as a leader, pressure can continue to be brought on Zimbabwe
because I think that is part of what is moving Mr. Mugabe.
If I can just comment also, one of the things I always tell
ambassadors when I meet them is, ``Please go to the Hill. Do
not rely on your State Department desk officer to tell the
story of your country.''
I think it is very important what Carl was just talking
about, to highlight the successes that are in Africa. I am on
the board of MCC, as Mr. Payne noted, and I think it has become
a great incentive not only for the country that is being given
the money but for its neighbors.
I had the opportunity to talk to the President of Zambia
during a signing ceremony for MCC, and I asked him, ``Why are
you taking this money that you have to meet these standards for
when you could get free money from China?'' and he said,
``Because this is better money for my country.'' He said, ``My
country needs to make these changes. It needs to worry about
girls going to school and what percentage of our children are
being immunized and how long it takes to start a business.''
And he said, ``This helped me get things changed in my country,
so that is why it is better than Chinese money.''
So, to the extent we can help move things along in these
countries through programs such as MCC, that will give us even
more successes to talk about.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What a wonderful story. I am ready to leap
across the ocean right now. I am just moved by that.
Ms. Lee is going to conclude. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your indulgence.
Ms. Lee. The one fix: The economy, the economy, the
economy. We stand before a people who have fought for democracy
time and time and time again, and we hear stories all the time
of people facing the most insurmountable odds, yet they still
stand in front of soldiers, in front of tanks, yet these
people, for their work, right now, they are becoming more
hungry and more sick and more unable to really focus on the
business of civil society, to focus on the business of human
rights.
So to the extent that we can, through the mechanisms that
are before us that can really make a difference and keep the
money out of the hands of those who are corrupt, we really need
to put all of our efforts that we.
I believe, truly, that with a people that have such a
tradition of democracy, the constitution will be a better
constitution if people can focus on democracy instead of
thinking about what are they going to eat, how are they going
to get medicine, how are they going to have their babies in a
safe, loving environment?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that getting farming back again?
Ms. Lee. Excuse me?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that getting agriculture back again?
Ms. Lee. It is certainly getting the agriculture back
again, but the emergency relief that the finance minister,
Tendai Biti, has requested is that we contribute to this Multi-
Donor Trust, and that is something that TransAfrica is very
committed to, and that would go through the IMF, the World
Bank, the African Development Bank, and ensure that the money
goes to where it is most needed and stays out of the hands of
corrupt elements in the government.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chairman. I yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Before we voted, and perhaps you
all answered this, but I still would like to pose it again, and
if you have answered it, I will look at the record, but what
happens if the MDC bolts the unity government?
Certainly, there has to be an encouragement,
notwithstanding the pitfalls and the crises faced by that
party, to stay in and make it work.
Secondly, since August 2008, as we all know, approximately
100,000 people contracted cholera, resulting in over 4,300
deaths. The World Health Organization suggests that the cholera
epidemic has dissipated. My question is, has it, and what are
the fears of a return?
Mr. Mabenge. Thank you very much. The Global Political
Agreement states quite clearly that, in the event that this
thing does not work, one of the political parties can--let me
use the words, ``pull out,'' and trigger an election.
If the MDC pulls out of this agreement now, it is my
considered opinion that the consequences would be disastrous.
If we go the election route, again, as I indicated earlier,
communities are not yet ready for political processes that
subject them to conditions as they were subjected to between
March and September 2008.
So, still, it remains quite crucial for the MDC to give
this Global Political Agreement a minimum threshold of time to
allow movement toward a situation where if an election is
triggered, the communities will be able to participate freely
and deliver democratization.
So it remains, I still do not know what exactly would
happen, but if the MDC does pull out, I am saying we have the
likelihood of a possible military takeover, whether it is a
soft takeover or an outright takeover, as we witnessed between
March and September. So it is in the best interests of
Zimbabweans to, at least, give time to this process and deal
with critical matters outlined in the Global Political
Agreement, which are our own benchmarks, as Zimbabweans, in the
movement toward full democratization. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Cholera?
Mr. Gershman. Obviously, no one wants to see this agreement
fall apart. We have got to now focus on how to move forward,
and to go back would be a disaster.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Can you comment on what we could
do to mitigate the possibility of a reemergence? On cholera,
any thoughts on whether or not it really has dissipated and
whether or not it might come back unless mitigating efforts are
made?
Ms. Lee. On cholera, we have heard the same, that it has
been dissipating, but it is important to note that the
infrastructure issues that led to the cholera epidemic are
still very much there, and other diseases that have not been
seen in Zimbabwe all that often are being seen much more often,
other waterborne illnesses. So it is still certainly an issue,
but, for right now, yes, we have heard the same.
Mr. Craner. If I can just go back to the question, What if
the MDC bolts? I would say two things.
Number one, it is important for us to continue to work very
intensively with the neighbors of Zimbabwe, both to see if they
can help ensure the success of the agreement but also so that
they are in place and ready to do what would need to be done if
the MDC had to bolt.
It is important that the MDC not feel that they have to put
up with anything or accept lowest-common-denominator agreements
simply to stay in.
I would also say that, as far as a reaction from the people
of Zimbabwe goes, I think that is yet another argument for them
to see benefit through channels that do not accrue credit to
the government from the fact that the MDC is now partly in
control of the country. In other words, if, with the MDC in
partial control, they see greater benefits, and if the MDC has
to pull out, they see lesser benefits, the conclusion for the
people is obvious.
Mr. Payne. Well, let me thank you all. Before we conclude,
it is encouraging that some of the surrounding governments--
South Africa and Botswana--have forwarded loans to the
government to help it along. As a matter of fact, several years
ago, Botswana was very concerned because they have beef markets
in Europe and because Zimbabwe's lack of animal safety that
animals can go across borders, and they were concerned that
their livestock could be impacted negatively by Zimbabwe's lack
of health concerns.
So I think that the countries in the region certainly are
concerned.
I would like to mention that I plan to introduce
legislation and will certainly include many of the excellent
recommendations and analyses that each of you have provided
here today. The purpose of the bill is to support democratic
reform, economic recovery, and political stability, but, most
importantly, to provide support for civil society and targeted
support to help bring about real change.
So we are going to, hopefully, be able to thread through
the difficulty. As I mentioned before, this is a very complex
and a very difficult situation, as we all know, but your
testimony and your answers to the questions have been extremely
helpful, and we certainly appreciate it, and I will conclude
the hearing.
Thank you, Ranking Member and the other members who finally
did get here, and I ask for unanimous consent for members to
have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, so ordered. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mi
nutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
