[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 2, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-137
__________
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
62-664 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
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
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, CONNIE MACK, Florida
FloridaAs of 5/6/ JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
10 deg. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee TED POE, Texas
GENE GREEN, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN WOOLSEY, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
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, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Steven McDonald, Consulting Program Director, Africa Program,
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars............... 6
Mr. Sydney Masamvu, Political Analyst, Institute for Democracy in
Africa (IDASA)................................................. 16
Mr. Deprose Muchena, Program Manager, Economic Justice, Open
Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)................. 24
Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D., Political Analyst, Center for Global
Liberty and Prosperity, CATO Institute......................... 34
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Steven McDonald: Prepared statement.......................... 9
Mr. Sydney Masamvu: Prepared statement........................... 18
Mr. Deprose Muchena: Prepared statement.......................... 26
Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 36
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Payne
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Payne. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and
Global Health will come to order. Our topic today is Zimbabwe:
From Crisis to Renewal.
Good morning. Let me welcome all of you here today in
regard to this very important hearing entitled: ``Zimbabwe:
From Crisis to Renewal.'' This is the second hearing that I
have held this year on Zimbabwe, so it is testimony to the fact
that we feel that Zimbabwe is a very, very important country
and that we need to focus on it to see if we can move it from
its past and current situation to an improved one. We think
that it is important that we continue to debate over U.S.
policy toward that country.
At our last hearing, I gave a brief overview of Zimbabwe's
great history, because in the midst of ongoing political and
economic crisis that continues to plague Zimbabwe, its past
rich history is often forgotten. As we will hear from our
esteemed witnesses, there is still hope for the renewal that so
many seek in Zimbabwe.
However, serious challenges remain. That is one of the
purposes why we are still focusing on Zimbabwe. The purpose of
this hearing is to explore those challenges and to discuss the
ways that U.S. policy can have a positive impact. It is very
easy to chastise and to sanction and to isolate. It is very
difficult to try to see how we can have a transformational
policy to see if we can bring a country from its doldrums into
the new millennium as we speak.
In September 2008, the Global Political Agreement, the GPA,
was signed between the Zimbabwe African National Union
Patriotic Front, ZANU-PF, led by President Robert Mugabe; the
Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, led my Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai; and the Movement for Democratic Change
Mutambara, MDC-M; and a coalition government was formed. Since
then, important progress has been made, yet serious challenges
remain and the people of Zimbabwe continue to suffer. Due to
the difficult economic and security conditions an estimated 3
million people fled Zimbabwe for South Africa and unemployment
rates have reached over 90 percent. Civil society groups, labor
unions, and other economic groups continue to face harassment
and intimidation from ZANU-PF-ruled security forces.
We are now 2 years since the GPA was signed. In Zimbabwe,
as we have seen in our countries, most strikingly in Sudan,
whose own CPA, Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is in danger of
failure, agreements do not of themselves bring peace. The
agreement is merely the foundation upon which a peace and a
process of change can be built. It is a framework. And we tend
to want to hope that the framework will work. But as we have
seen, it is difficult and many times unattainable.
In the case of the GPA, many see it as having already
failed because ZANU-PF still controls much of the power in the
coalition government. However, I believe that there are
elements within the coalition government, not just in the
opposition, who want to see real change in Zimbabwe and with
whom we can work to improve the lives of everyday Zimbabweans.
The new government has faced formidable challenges to
responding to widespread humanitarian needs, including
addressing a serious cholera outbreak in 2008 and 2009 that
claimed more than 4,000 lives, and in implementing the reforms
necessary to repair a badly damaged economy.
Despite odds that seem stacked against progress,
improvements have been made in several sectors by the new
government. Ministers from MDC, particularly the economic
reforms by Finance Minister Tendai Biti, present what many
Zimbabweans and the international community, myself included,
believe is an opportunity to push for political reform and
economic recovery.
Proof of the growing sense that Zimbabwe is slowly moving
in the right direction is the recent establishment of the
Enterprise Zimbabwe founded by Sir Richard Branson, Pam Omidyar
of Humanity United, and Nduna Foundation, which seeks to
attract investments toward Zimbabwe's economic and social
recovery.
Although I remain concerned about the harassment of
opposition and civil society activists by ZANU-PF elements, the
human rights situation has improved, though modestly.
I had the opportunity to meet with President Mugabe in the
spring of 2009, the first meeting of a U.S. official in several
years, and it lasted for several hours. And I shared with him
my concern over the lack of implementation of GPA and the
continued harassment of human rights groups like Women of
Zimbabwe Arise--WOZA--and opposition activists. And we had a
very thorough discussion about that where he was ready to deny
that it was perpetrated by his government but that these were
things that happened. And we did see a downturn in the attack
on the women immediately following our meetings. However, we
have seen problems arise again.
Despite the economic turnabout begun by Minister Biti, the
majority of Zimbabweans face enormous challenges and live on
less than $1 a day. Other challenges that remain include the
approval of a new constitution that reflects the will of the
people and the security sector reform, which is extremely
important.
As I have previously stated, the method of redistribution
of land from white land owners to political allies of President
Mugabe was misguided and wrong. 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. We can't say that the problem
does not exist. However, a solution to the problem has to be in
an equitable way.
I am also concerned about the impact that the
indigenization law, enacted earlier this year, which requires
all firms to have majority black shareholders, will have on the
ability to attract investment.
These are things which I would like to continue to engage
President Mugabe on in a constructive way. The injustices left
behind with the legacy of colonialism must be seriously
addressed. They do not go away. However, it may be a more
constructive way to look at other models for redressing these
wrongs, such as the Black Economic Empowerment Program in South
Africa.
Let me again state that this is a serious issue that must
be addressed. Again, I believe Zimbabwe is at a critical
juncture, which requires real leadership from the U.S. to
engage other donors in the renewal of Zimbabwe's political,
economic, and social structure.
Currently, U.S. policy cannot take full advantage of the
changing realities in Zimbabwe because of restrictions on
assistance in certain key areas. I believe with greater
flexibility the administration would be able to do just that.
To that end, earlier this year I introduced the Zimbabwe
Renewal Act, H.R. 5971, which would provide the following: One,
cancellation of Zimbabwe's debt; support for full
implementation of the GPA assistance for democratic and
judicial reform, economic recovery, human rights, labor rights,
press freedom, health care, education, clean water,
agriculture, and youth employment; support for land reform;
technical assistance to key ministries; maintain sanctions
where needed; and call for a review and removal of certain
sanctions if certain conditions are met to support the GPA and
the economic, social, and democratic renewal of Zimbabwe.
I hope that, moving forward, this bill will receive wider
support of this committee toward working for a better chance
for all people in Zimbabwe.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses today. Although the
panel is made up of all men, we invited four different women.
Women staff wanted me to make sure that I mention this. I
wanted to be sure that I mentioned it.
We invited women from Humanity United, Nduna Foundation,
Enterprise Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe Peace Project. And,
unfortunately, none of them could make it today. The experts we
have today, though, although they are not women, that is clear,
I think that they will all do an excellent job.
With that I will recognize our ranking member, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for calling this very important hearing. And welcome to our
witnesses.
We are all familiar with the sad reports from Zimbabwe,
recently known as the world's fastest shrinking economy. Before
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dictator president, agreed to a power
sharing with the Movement for Democratic Change in 2009, prices
were known to double every 24 hours, and for 2008 the IMF
reported inflation at 500 billion percent and economic growth
at negative 14 percent. Though MDC reforms seem to have broken
the hyperinflation, the situation is extremely difficult, with
massive unemployment and immigration and broken systems of
health care and education.
It is difficult to even grasp the tragedy lived by millions
of Zimbabweans. Until 10 or 15 years ago, they lived in one of
the most prosperous African countries. Perhaps the most human
measure of the suffering caused by economic failure is the
decline in life expectancy, which fell from 56 years in 1990 to
44 years in 2008. In the past 2 years, it has risen slightly,
to 47.5. These numbers reflect millions of families without
moms and dads and probably even more mothers and fathers who
have lost their children.
This is not the result of accidental misrule or weak
government in chaotic conditions but of Mugabe's ruthless
pursuit of total control. He is a declared admirer of the North
Korean Juche system. 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. His
violent harassment of the opposition, human rights activists,
and journalists includes torture and death.
But Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party were not able to achieve,
the same control over Zimbabwe as the Kim family has over North
Korea. Zimbabwean civil society and human rights activists,
including the men and women of the Movement for Democratic
Change, have heroically organized themselves in opposition to
Mugabe. For years, they have understood that the only way
forward for Zimbabwe is to throw off Mugabe and the criminal
elements of ZANU.
After Mugabe's ease attempt to steal the 2008 election
failed, we all hoped that the power sharing agreement that
Mugabe was forced to accept with the Movement for Democratic
Change and Morgan Tsvangirai would create a new situation. We
hoped Mugabe and ZANU-PF security chiefs would have to loosen
their choking grip on that country. Unfortunately, this has not
happened, nor is there any sign that despite the admirable and
often heroic efforts of the MDC that it will happen any time in
the foreseeable future.
Mugabe and his lieutenants have managed to keep control
over the key level of power, to limit the MDC ministers real
authority, often by ignoring them, and to frustrate the
purposes of the agreement.
And so now we are back before questions of how U.S. policy
can encourage change in Zimbabwe, whether current sanctions on
Zimbabwe should be retargeted and how humanitarian aid might be
restructured.
I want to note for the record that we are joined at our
hearing by Jeff Flake, a member of this committee, obviously.
But Jeff Flake actually lived in Zimbabwe between 1982 and 1983
and he actually wrote his master's thesis on Robert Mugabe. So
we have a man that has been following this for virtually all of
his adult life. And it is great to have him here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership as well.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Woolsey, do you have an opening statement?
Ms. Woolsey. A very short one, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Zimbabwe, I believe, could have been one of the great post-
colonial nations in Africa. Instead, President Mugabe plundered
his own country, laid waste to a profitable economy, a strong
education sector, and a dynamic population. The proud and
strong people of Zimbabwe deserve so much better.
So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today
and learning if and how our foreign aid assistance is helping
to elevate Zimbabwe back to its rightful place as a regional
leader in Southern Africa. So thank you for this hearing.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. No.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. We will now move into our witnesses'
testimony. Let me introduce the four gentlemen before us.
We have with us, first, we will hear from Mr. Steve
McDonald. Mr. McDonald is the Consulting Director of the Africa
Program and the Project on Leadership and Building State
Capacity at the Woodrow Center for International Scholars in
Washington, DC, where he has worked since 2002. Mr. McDonald
helped to design, initiate, and now manages the Center's
leadership capacity building and post-conflict resolution
programs in Burundi, the DRC, and Liberia. Mr. McDonald has a
master's degree in African Politics from the University of
London School of Oriental and African Studies, and has lived on
and worked with Africa for 40 years.
Mr. McDonald began his career in Africa in 1970 as an
embassy officer in the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, and
later served in South Africa as the Desk Officer for Angola,
Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and
Principe. During these years, he served as support staff to the
Anglo-American Initiative on Rhodesia that led to the Lancaster
House and the Zimbabwean settlement and the Five Power
negotiations on Southwest Africa/Namibia. In 1980, Mr. McDonald
moved to the nonprofit sector, where he has headed the U.S.-
South Africa Leadership Development Program, Aspen Institute's
Southern Africa Policy Forum, and was one of those responsible
for bringing Mr. De Klerk together with Mr. Mandela for their
first face-to-face meeting under the Aspen Institute, a meeting
I happened to have the privilege to be at in the apartheid
following the release of Mr. Mandela while Mr. De Klerk was
still president. He has served as Executive Vice President of
the African American Institute. He has also done conflict
resolution work in Northern Ireland and Brazil. Mr. McDonald
has published, edited, and written for numerous publications.
Next, we have Mr. Sydney Masamvu. Mr. Masamvu is a Senior
Political Analyst at the Institute for Democracy in Africa,
IDASA. Mr. Masamvu works on Zimbabwean issues with IDASA's
States in Transition Observatory. IDASA's States in Transition
Observatory provides information and analysis on political
developments in countries experiencing a transition or crisis.
Mr. Masamvu is a journalist by trade. In addition to his work
for IDASA, Mr. Masamvu has researched and written on Zimbabwe
for the past 7 years with Brussels-based International Crisis
Group and consulted with the Elders Forum on Zimbabwe.
Next, we have Mr. Deprose Muchena. Mr. Muchena is the
Deputy Director and the Economic Justice Program Manager at the
Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Prior to these
appointments, Mr. Muchena worked with USAID in the Zimbabwe
Mission as Democracy and Governance Adviser. Mr. Muchena is a
highly respected human rights defender in Zimbabwe, having been
among the founding members of the National Constitutional
Assembly and continuing to serve on the boards of various NGOs.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Muchena was at the Zimbabwe
Council of Churches, focusing on economic and social rights and
the role of the church in promoting and protecting fundamental
freedoms and civil liberties.
Finally, we have Dr. Marian L. Tupy. Dr. Tupy is a policy
analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and
Prosperity specializing in the study of the political economy
of Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Dr. Tupy has worked on the
Council on Foreign Relations' Commission on Angola and advised
the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of
State on Central Europe. Dr. Tupy received his B.A. In
International Relations and Classics from the University of the
Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his Ph.D. In
International Relations from the University of St. Andrews in
Great Britain. Dr. Tupy's articles have been published in a
number of outlets both in the United States and overseas. He
has appeared on various television programs in the United
States and throughout the world.
We welcome this panel.
Mr. McDonald.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN MCDONALD, CONSULTING PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
AFRICA PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
SCHOLARS
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
kind introduction.
Congressman Smith, Congressman Woolsey, Congressman Flake,
it is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to appear
before you. I have had the honor of working with the
distinguished chairman, Donald Payne, before over the last 20
years or so, as a matter of fact. He has made allusion to that.
And it is really, really a delight to be here again and working
with him.
The challenge that lies before us today reminds me a little
bit of the work we did in the 1980s on South Africa, where we
are dealing with a regime that needed to have some sanctions
taken against it, needed to have a strong push to change the
way in which things were unfolding there, but at the same time
needed to protect the people, needed to work in a positive way
to ensure a democratic future. And I think that is the
challenge that lies before us today.
I want to begin my oral testimony with a caveat about
myself. I appreciate the introduction and all. I was involved
very intimately and very early on in 1976 to 1980 with the
transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe as a U.S. diplomat. And I
worked in subsequent years with that country in various other
capacities but I haven't visited Zimbabwe in 10 years. And
while I stay in close touch with the colleagues who do visit
and with Zimbabwean friends both in and outside of the country,
my reflections on the current situation are, of necessity,
secondhand.
Therefore, having had a good look at the scope and depth of
the testimony that you are about to hear from my colleagues
here at the table with me who are going to describe in detail
the current state of play and fragility of the Global Political
Agreement--the GPA--and the transitional inclusive government
and the human rights abuses and the economic situation that
besets that country, I think my best focus would be on some
aspects of what the U.S. can most usefully do to make a
difference in encouraging the renewal of Zimbabwe that we all
seek.
In my submitted testimony, written testimony, I elaborate
on the record of abuse on ZANU-PF from 1980 to 2008. I talk
about the early optimism that I think you referred to, Mr.
Chairman, from the international community, and Congresswoman
Woolsey, too, and the disappointment now that exists over the
human rights abuses, the abrogation of democratic norms, the
corruption and mismanagement that has occurred in constituent
years.
In response, of course, as we well know, and as detailed in
your opening remarks, the international community has responded
with an application of a number of sanctions against government
officials, redirecting of development aid through
nongovernmental channels, statements of strong condemnation of
human rights abuses, encouragement of the regional--SADC and
Africa Union--peace initiatives, support for the GPA, a new
constitution and free and fair elections, but a strong cooling
of our bilateral relations.
Although the implementation of a GPA has been painfully
slow, the very fact that it exists, that the opposition party,
the MDC holds the prime minister's office and other significant
ministries mostly focused on the economic and development, has
given outside observers some room for optimism.
With signs of recovery in the economy now, continuing
promises of cooperation amongst the parties to the coalition
government to push through the actions called for by the GPA
and a new government in South Africa and dynamics within SADC
that indicate the end of a tolerance for the Mugabe regime,
legislation has now been offered in both the House and the
Senate that would seek to continue to apply pressure to this
wayward regime and to the individuals who have not committed to
the GPA, while at the same time not exacerbating the damage to
the fabric of the economy and the welfare of the people of
Zimbabwe; and, more important, looking to the future,
fashioning a way to support a viable opposition and encourage a
return to democratic governance.
I would caution policymakers as they look at possible
policy options to be certain there are some sticks along with
the carrots; that monitoring of performance on democracy and
recovery be strict and comprehensive and that they do not allow
the government to use any lifting of sanctions, however
targeted and whatever caveats are applied, as a propaganda
victory.
I know my colleagues here will offer some concrete
suggestions in their testimony on how U.S. policy and
engagement might be shaped in the coming years. Legislation
offered by this body and your colleagues in the Senate offer a
number of possible avenues for positively impacting the
transition.
Let me add only one further thought on one specific aspect
of the renewal that has to come and I believe is coming. Based
on my own experiences in other conflict and post-conflict
countries in Africa, as well as conversations I have had with
Zimbabweans currently engaged in pushing for recovery there, I
would like to underline an important and often overlooked
element in dealing with conflicted societies. Any country
emerging from conflict has several common imperatives. They are
intuitive but almost always ignored. Trust has been broken and
the antagonists to the conflict do not have a sense of
interdependence or shared interests. Relationships are torn
asunder. Communications are characterized by posturing and
accusations. The key stakeholders do not listen to each other
and discourse is confrontational. Finally, there is no
agreement on how power is to be shared and decisions made. In
short, there is no common vision and sense of common identity.
There are tried and tested ways in which antagonists can be
brought together to address these issues, rebuild the trust,
and form collaborative relations that allow them to solve
problems together and move forward while still taking into
account the interests of all. Sometimes this approach is listed
as reconciliation or conflict resolution, but it is really
conflict transformation--changing the way in which people
compete, how they think about and interact with each other. At
a level where insidious and self-serving interests seem
dominant, where the outside world sees no political will from
the opposing parties to reach out to each other, this job, of
course, can be very, very difficult.
But my program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, as the
chairman has mentioned, has been pioneering this methodology
for over 8 years in Burundi and the DRC and Liberia with
increasing levels of success and the formation of networks of
committed leaders to work together for a common future. These
are ideas that I have explored with colleagues at IDASA and
IDAZIM, who are at the table here today, in Johannesburg, and
Search for Common Ground here in Washington and Harare, and we
are exploring how best we might be able to assist in the
transition as the renewal of Zimbabwe begins to take place.
The points of entry will differ from programs we have done
elsewhere, and one might have to start at a local or community
level. Civil society, along with political power brokers, must
be involved. But it must be a part of any renewal effort, in
tandem with or even preceding the setting in place of
institutional frameworks and processes, such as elections.
Without trust, without a shared vision, without a sense of
interdependence and willingness to collaborate, the agendas of
democratic governance, development, reconciliation, and
recovery cannot go forward.
I am pleased to see that bills now under consideration
address this element by providing support for reconciliation
efforts, strengthening local government, and encouraging a
peace-building process. I hope this remains central to any role
the U.S. decides to play.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
[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. Masamvu.
STATEMENT OF MR. SYDNEY MASAMVU, POLITICAL ANALYST, INSTITUTE
FOR DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA (IDASA)
Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, for inviting me and my organization. We look forward
to testifying to this committee.
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to talk about:
Zimbabwe: From Crisis to Renewal. But I want to state from the
outset that Zimbabwe faces a critical 6 months. The honeymoon
which has been enjoyed over the past 18 months is a result of
the formation of the inclusive government, which brought some
semblance of stability and peace, is about to end.
In coming to the new year, Zimbabwe will enter into an
election mode. I believe before we even look forward to the
renewal of Zimbabwe, we need the U.S., along with other actors,
need actually to be on top of the situation and try to
influence events in the next 6 months which have the capacity
to bring Zimbabwe back to the period of March 2008.
Two critical elements are looming large with regard to the
situation unfolding in Zimbabwe in the next 6 months--the
election process and the key role of the military in that
particular election.
I think, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the
issue in Zimbabwe is no longer about the credibility of
elections or the perceived outcome of the elections. The
critical issue in Zimbabwe is about the power transfer. It is
important right now that any intervention in Zimbabwe has to
smoothen the key elements which undercut or which undermine the
voice of the people, which they have done, which they have
spoken to over the past 10 years.
Any process or any legislation which can be pushed from
wherever source which marginalizes and underlooks the key role
played by the military in the Zimbabwe crisis will actually
achieve nothing to push the transition forward and return the
country to democracy. The military which is the one which
actually for the past 18 months has actually been dictating the
course of events in the inclusive government. All the issues
which are sort of the fractionality of the inclusive government
has largely been undermined by the key role played by the
military, which behind the scenes is the one which is playing a
key role of driving the leaders of power in Zimbabwe.
So as we move forward I think the immediate objective in
the next 6 months, before we even talk of renewal, is actually
to influence the issue of the election process and try to
structure a transition process which takes on board the
concerns of the military, which by extension is taking on board
the concerns of President Robert Mugabe.
Over the past 8 years it has been quite clear that the
restrictive measures which have been put in place have failed
to a very large extent to achieve the objective which they have
set out to do. The restrictive measures were put in place to
encourage the return of Zimbabwe to the rule of law, to promote
good governance, and actually to encourage those undermining
democracy in Zimbabwe to change course. But, alas, 8 years down
the line those measures have not achieved the set out
objectives. And we believe going forward it is actually
important that the restrictive measures we have put in place
because of a flawed election and the upcoming election,
whenever it is held, should actually set out the platform in
which the whole issue of restrictive measures should be viewed
within the context of an election process.
It is our considered view that unless the U.S., working
through the AU, SADC, and with South Africa, the U.S. should
actually take a leading role in actually bringing together the
key elements within the region and on the continent to actually
smoothen the transition process in Zimbabwe and broaden the
platform--not only look at restrictive measures, but also
looking at the concerns, fears of the military establishment,
which is actually key in smoothening the transition process in
Zimbabwe. If those issues are not addressed, critically the
issues which affect the military, I think it would be premature
for us even to talk of a Zimbabwe renewal before we talk
actually of influencing the key elements which are actually
extending the way of democratization.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Masamvu follows:]
[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. Muchena.
STATEMENT OF MR. DEPROSE MUCHENA, PROGRAM MANAGER, ECONOMIC
JUSTICE, OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA (OSISA)
Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members
of the committee. I appear before you as a very patriotic
Zimbabwean who is part of a post-colonial generation in
Zimbabwe but trying very hard to have a role to play in the
progress of our country. I want to underscore the points
already made by Mr. Masamvu, which is to say the next 6 months
represents a critical crossroads for Zimbabwe because what we
have seen is the return of election talk without implementing
fully the requirement of the Global Political Agreement, which
would allow a credible election to take place and transfer of
power to take place and a legitimate democratic government to
become the product of that. That has always been the purpose of
the GPA, to facilitate the transition of Zimbabwe from crisis
to renewal.
Four critical goals of the Global Political Agreement are
overdue for delivery. The first is a new constitution approved
through a popular vote; the second is a free and fair media
environment; the third is a reformed electoral system with a
clean voters' law that doesn't have ghost voters on it. The
fourth and last is an agreed-upon package of security sector
reforms that would facilitate noninterference of the military
in the conduct and running of elections. These four things have
not been delivered, and they have therefore undermined progress
that had been hitherto achieved on the economy since the
inauguration of the inclusive government.
Last week, on the 25th of November, on Thursday, the
Minister of Finance submitted a budget to Parliament for 2011.
The total budget is $2.6 billion. And of that, 82 percent of
that budget is going to go toward financing recurrent
expenditure and only 18 percent is going to be for capital
investment. That represents a precarious position on the part
of Zimbabwe. And if you have the national debt of $6.7 billion,
then you can see that Zimbabwe needs to pass a similar budget
for the next 3 years to finance the debt, and it has become the
albatross around Zimbabwe's neck.
So limited political movement and reform is beginning to
undermine economic progress, and the inability of the
government to finance the debt is creating mutually enforcing
political and economic crisis. The view of this more fully
appears in my statement.
I think there are about four things that we need to be
supporting. It is time, in my view, for leadership and not
necessarily legislation, because post-election, that is when
you can actually provide legislation that responds and rewards
or punish. The U.S. Government would need to renew its
leadership role with SADC. It is the African Union Sharm el
Sheikh resolution that resulted in the GPA's coming into place.
We need to bring the AU back into the fold, ensure that there
is a special envoy working with SADC, to make sure that
progress is made. We need the U.S. Government to really
encourage much more robust audits of what has happened to date.
We also need the U.S. Government to freeze the legislative
process and use its diplomatic muscle to ensure that the two
submissions I am making are achieved.
The final part, because of elections that are coming, in
the absence of freedom and in the absence of funding, we need
to establish or the establishment of a Zimbabwe election fund,
which is managed by the U.N. That ensures that the Zimbabwe
Election Commission is ready to carry out elections. Last week,
the budget statement did not make available resources for
running the election. It only says there should be an election
fund. So it creates serious problems if you talk about election
without supporting the resolution of those elections and
financing.
The last one is really a much more sharper focus on the
role the military has played in Zimbabwe. It is important to
re-energize the focus of SADC and the AU so that the military
can move away from the premise of supporting regime security
toward supporting human security and development. We have no
role in modern democracies for the military to leave the
barracks and begin to be involved in processes of election
management or even governance.
I think I am prepared to take any questions, as appears
more fully from my statement. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muchena follows:]
[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.
Dr. Tupy.
STATEMENT OF MARIAN L. TUPY, PH.D., POLITICAL ANALYST, CENTER
FOR GLOBAL LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. Tupy. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies
and gentlemen, I am honored to give my testimony on Zimbabwe:
From Crisis to Renewal. The power-sharing Global Political
Agreement of 2008 was meant to return Zimbabwe on a path to
democracy and economic prosperity. It was, however, a very
flawed document that ignored the express will of the Zimbabwean
people. It left the military and the Department of Justice in
the hands of the ZANU-PF. Crucially, as it turned out over the
past 2 years, it left the ZANU-PF also the control of the
Ministry of Mines.
The mining ministry is essentially an offshoot of the
Zimbabwean military. Over the past 2 years, it has been
awarding mining concessions for exploration of Zimbabwe's
natural resources, including diamonds and gold, to a number of
South African, Chinese, and Russian state-controlled or
government-linked corporations. Part of the proceeds from those
mining operations are then channeled back to the Zimbabwean
military and the ZANU-PF. Reports indicate that laborers in
Zimbabwean mines includes Chinese and Zimbabwean prisoners. The
sharing of the proceeds from mining exploration with the
military but not with the rest of the population suggests that
Mugabe and ZANU-PF are trying to buy the loyalty of the armed
forces to order a crackdown on the opposition in the future.
To sum up, the GPA did not represent a power to democratic
forces. It is therefore unsurprising that the ZANU-PF has
essentially blocked progress on reforms that are vital if
electoral reform, or rather democratic transition is to take
place. Among the measures blocked by the ZANU-PF are the
drafting and adoption of the new constitution, liberalization
of the media, reform of the electoral system and
depoliticization of the military and the police force. It is my
belief that the uneasy truce between the two parties will
unravel as soon as ZANU-PF decides that the benefits of
eliminating the MDC outweigh the costs of terminating the
remnants of the GPA.
So where do we go from here? First of all, it is the
responsibility of the Zimbabwean people to chart their own
course. There are clear limits to what the United States
Government and well-meaning Americans can do. Here are some of
the measures that I believe the United States Government can
do: The continuation of targeted sanctions against persons and
companies responsible for perpetuation of violence and economic
mismanagement in Zimbabwe; spearheading of international effort
to further isolate Mugabe and ZANU-PF, which could include
intensive pressure on governments in the region to resolve the
issue of Zimbabwe in favor of democracy and economic growth;
ban of the exports of blood diamonds from Zimbabwe under the
Kimberly Process Certification Scheme.
Lastly, continuation, and preferably, expansion of the
Voice of America radio coverage to Zimbabwe. Most Zimbabweans
rely on radio for news. Speaking to one of the senior
opposition leaders in Zimbabwe, I have learned the VOA is the
only truthful voice coming to Zimbabwe. In every village,
people listen to the radio. Unfortunately, the VOA broadcast
only lasts for 1 hour a day. I find it absolutely astonishing
that 10 years after Zimbabwe embarked on its road to ruin, the
VOA broadcasts are that short. Having grown up behind the Iron
Curtain, I can personally attest to the power of truthful
information in undermining tyrannical regimes.
The role of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the
collapse of communism was, I believe, absolutely vital. The
U.S. Government has often expressed its willingness to step up
its financial aid to Zimbabwe, and yet I believe that the U.S.
Government can help the people of Zimbabwe in a much more
effective and efficient way by enabling more Zimbabweans to
access truthful information on a more frequent basis. Let the
people make up their minds about the course of action they want
to take to improve their lot.
I believe that the following actions should be avoided:
Provision of foreign aid to the government of Zimbabwe either
now or in the event of the government falling into the hands of
the MDC. Experience shows that aid is a disincentive to reform.
Without recourse to aid, the government of Zimbabwe has already
taken some very important steps that could generate growth in
the economy. Among that is the legalization of possession and
trade in foreign currencies and partial liberalization of the
business environment. These positive reforms have been offset
by the threat of renewed political violence, uncertainty
surrounding property rights, and indigenization policy that was
already discussed.
Far from stimulating development in Africa, aid has
retarded it. I see no indication whatsoever that foreign aid to
Zimbabwe would unleash economic growth. Quite to the contrary,
it would likely slow it. In the past, aid to Africa has been,
by and large, stolen or wasted. There is no surer way to
corrupt a few remaining honest politicians and civil servants
in Zimbabwe than to entice them into dishonest behavior with
large sums of foreign money.
A number of respected commentators in the United States and
elsewhere have called on the United States and Western
governments to support the MDC's health and education
departments. In addition to satisfying the understandable
humanitarian impulse, the argument goes, Western aid could help
the MDC accomplish concrete goals and improve the welfare of
the Zimbabwean people, thus showing the difference between the
self-interested ZANU-PF and the MDC.
I believe that this point would be much more serious if
there was a likelihood of a democratic transfer of power. That
I do not see as very likely. Still, should the United States
decide to increase aid to education and health departments in
Zimbabwe, such aid should be accompanied by the highest degree
of scrutiny. In my view, it should be ultimately overseen by
American officials, secunded to health and education
departments in Zimbabwe.
In order to prosper, Zimbabwe needs to adopt the economic
policies that enabled Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, South Korea,
Taiwan, and many other previously poor countries to rise from
poverty to riches in a space of one or two generations. I
believe that with a liberalized trade and domestic business
environment, with a reformed judiciary that puts emphasis on
the sanctity of persons and property, Zimbabwe can prosper as
many countries have done in the past.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tupy follows:]
[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.
Let me begin by asking you--I think it was you, Mr.
Muchena. You mentioned that you felt that in addition to the
SADC, that the AU should be involved. Can you give me your
feeling of the effectiveness of SADC under Thabo Mbeki's
leadership as president of South Africa, now with President
Jacob Zuma leading South Africa, and therefore SADC indirectly,
and why your feeling that it should be expanded to the overall
Africa Union?
Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Chairman. The role of Thabo Mbeki
as mediator, it is successes and failures. But one of the most
outstanding things about Thabo Mbeki's role was the total
contempt that he held for Zimbabweans, especially the
opposition groups in Zimbabwe, and his overwhelming commitment
in his role to save a decaying nationalist movement and impose
his own will and looking at Zimbabwe through the lens of
domestic political affairs in South Africa. So what he did most
was to ensure that no progress would go forward that would
essentially correspond with the will of the people. I think
that is the hallmark of Mbeki's role.
He also sidestepped many of the people and ensured that
Zimbabwe was his personal project and called in the African
Union when he wanted it to come. But you will see that it was
the African Union, driven in part by Article 4 of the
constitutive act of the African Union, which is responsibility
to protect doctrine, that they moved a motion Sharm el Sheikh
to become involved in Zimbabwe and support SADC and guarantee
the success of the GPA process.
Since then, President Zuma has moved to take on the
facilitation role of reporting to AU leaders from time to time.
We think that the energy that was displayed by President Zuma
in the initial months are beginning to falter and he needs to
shorten the arm. And the shortened arm can come nowhere else
than within the African Union itself, which is meeting, as you
know, in February next year, and putting the matter on the
agenda of the Africa Union so that it receives the report as a
guarantor of the Global Political Agreement would enable
movement in Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe is not afraid of anyone in the world
except fear of losing African support, and I think that is
exactly what happened when the Sharm el Sheikh resolution was
made. He discovered that he was now standing alone, and he went
back and started to talk to opposition groups. It is time for
the African Union to support the initiative of the SADC process
by appointing a special envoy themselves who is going to engage
directly with members of the parties but also with other people
who are influencing the GPA, such as the military. And we think
if that is done, there is a reasonable prospect that the United
States and other actors can now support that process, which is
African led and Zimbabwean led.
Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. McDonald, you have heard mention the Zimbabweans, that
the next 6 months is going to be very critical. As an
Africanist and have worked in conflicts and in areas where
elections were coming, like in Namibia we have had, and South
Africa and so forth, what would be four or five concrete steps
you think that the U.S. should try to get support for?
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to this in
my opening remarks, what I think should be done in a pre-
election period. There is a variety of things, obviously. And I
note that contained within the legislation that you have
proposed and I think some of the sister legislation on the
other side addresses some of this.
We, I think, tend to make mistakes as we approach elections
and democratic processes in Africa--the ``we'' being the
Western World--by assuming if we support institutional
structures and give resources to that, give training toward
that, that that will solve the problem. It is important to work
as we can with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, to work with
local monitoring groups with training and et cetera--vastly
important--and also work with party structures themselves--the
MDC and the other parties--to help in their ability to campaign
freely and fairly and understand competition does not mean
violence.
But there really needs to be preparation work done with
individuals themselves. And I think that Mr. Masamvu here, and
I believe Mr. Muchena mentioned it as well, but put his finger
on a very, very important aspect, and that is security sector
reform. Security sector reform is writ large. We all understand
or it is rumored that the army has played a very ominous role
in the current situation in Zimbabwe, that they have been the
power behind the throne, so to speak, and may have even
prevented Mugabe at one point in time in 2008 of making certain
compromises with opposition that he might have wanted to make
because their own interests were not being served by that,
without some work with the military in advance. And by this I
mean addressing the kinds of fears that they have that Mr.
Masamvu pointed out.
It is something we never think about that well, why are
elements within society like a military totally intractable. We
dealt with this with a Tutsi-led army in Burundi. Why are they
so intractable to change? It is because they are fear actual of
change. They are fearful of what role they will play. It is not
just the loss of privilege and the loss of position and the
loss of access to mineral wealth and that sort of thing. It is,
what will become of them.
There is real, truthfully, work that needs to be done in
the true sense of conflict resolution and transformation with
all of these elements. It is a big thing to try to do in a
short amount of time when elections are on the horizon and we
find ourselves repeatedly in this position where preparations
for elections should have started years before and we are now a
few months before them and we are beginning to think about it.
But I think we have need to begin to think about that
people factor, working not just with the parties but with the
military as well, with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission,
obviously putting in funds for training and working with local
observers and monitors and bringing in as we can and be helpful
with the bringing in of credible outside monitors.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. My time is expiring. Let me just ask
you, Mr. Masamvu, what authority do you really feel that Prime
Minister Tsvangirai has? Has his involvement as prime minister
made much of a change in the activities? Are Zimbabweans better
off today than they were before the MDC coalition GPA?
Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the greatest
thing which happened in Zimbabwe was for the leadership of the
opposition to agree to go into the inclusive government, taking
cognizance of the suffering which the general population was
experiencing at the time. I must hasten to point out, Mr.
Chairman, that if Zimbabwe had gone for a further 2 or 3 months
without an inclusive government in place, no matter how flawed
the GPA was, actually, except the country from erupting into
civil strife. So, by and large, the relative stability, peace,
and somewhat recovery which is being experienced in Zimbabwe
right now is credited to the entry of Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai in government. Notwithstanding that, maybe the
stakes or the balance of power is tilted against him. So to a
very large extent right now the feeling on the ground--I was in
Zimbabwe just about 2 weeks ago. When you ask the average,
general person, no one is in the mood of in favoring an
election. People are saying, Let this peace which we have been
experiencing for the past 18 months proceed for some time. And
they are all saying the opposition of Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai took a responsible decision by joining an inclusive
government to allow people to pick up the pieces and sort of
regroup and have peace in their lives.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Finally, Dr. Tupy, as you concluded your remarks about the
waste and corruption and greedy politicians and bureaucrats you
mention in Africa, therefore you are opposed to foreign aid.
What is your opinion on Afghanistan and Iran? Are you opposed
to Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of millions, probably
billions of dollars that we are sending over there in planes
and cash? Is your position that you are opposed to criminal
leaders in all countries--I know we just asked you about
Zimbabwe--but what is your view to what the U.S. Government has
been doing for the last 10 years in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Mr. Tupy. Thank you. Yes, sir. My position is consistent. I
do not believe that the United States should provide foreign
aid, economic development aid, to countries abroad, not simply
because it is often stolen and wasted in the way as we see on a
daily basis in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, but
fundamentally because in some countries that receive large
chunks of foreign aid--sorry, governments that receive large
chunks of foreign aid generally tend to be much less open to
reforms, much less eager to build up their own private sector
than countries that do not receive foreign aid.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Just maybe one quick question. You recall
the Marshall Plan, and it might be from Europe. The Marshall
Plan, actually it was not for foreign assistance. In the United
States Marshall Plan, Europe probably would have taken another
30 or 40 years before it recovered. There was an enormous
amount of U.S. taxpayer money that went into the development of
Europe, and--than assisting countries today.
Mr. Tupy. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question.
Mr. Payne. Make it quick so my colleagues can go. I am
sorry. I don't know what is going on, but go ahead.
Mr. Tupy. Four fundamental differences. One, the absolute
amount of money involved in Marshall Plan is smaller than the
amount of money that the United States alone, let alone the
entire Western community, have given to Africa over the past 40
years.
Secondly, it was time-limited to 4 years. We have now been
giving foreign aid to Africa and many other countries around
the world for 40 years.
Thirdly, in Europe, Marshall Plan was reconstructing
economies, not developing economies. Europe was already a
developed continent when money was provided by the United
States to reconstruct it, not to develop it from scratch. This
is a very important difference between reconstruction and
development. We know how to reconstruct. We don't know how to
develop.
Mr. Payne. Unfortunately, my time has expired.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask all
questions all at once just so that we can get to Mr. Flake as
well, and any of you who would like to answer the questions,
please do so. First of all----
Mr. Payne. We will have about 20 minutes or so, 25 to.
Mr. Smith. First, on the issue of human trafficking, which
is an issue that I and so many of us deeply care about.
Zimbabwe is a Tier 3 country. It is an egregious violator when
it comes to the government not meeting minimum standards, and
that is as issued just as recently as last June by the Office
of Trafficking in Persons within the administration. And in
reading the report, it is a scathing indictment that, for
example, orphans without birth certificates are particularly
vulnerable to exploitation, enforced labor and prostitution. It
points out that young men and boys are forced by Zimbabwean
Government security forces to work in the diamond mines. It
points out that women and girls from towns bordering South
Africa and Zambia are forced into prostitution in brothels that
cater to long-distance truck drivers. And it goes on into how
severely exploited these women are, often contracting HIV/AIDS
and other STDs.
And then the point is officials made no apparent efforts to
proactively identify victims of trafficking. There have been no
reports, according to the TIP report, of prostitutions or
convictions for forced labor or forced prostitution, and even
in 2009, seven Zimbabwean men who were recruited in Zimbabwe by
a Chinese national for jobs, once they got to their
destination, their passports were confiscated, and they were
subjected to forced labor. And again, the TIP report reads like
an indictment.
Your views on what needs to be done. Yes, we want to
obviously create better institutions of government, but here is
a mirror that has been held up with our minimum standards in
our law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and Zimbabwe's
people, especially its women and children, are being exploited
cruelly.
Secondly, on the issue of religious freedom, on November
17, the new religious freedom report came out and pointed out
that the government harassed religious leaders who were
critical of government policies, who spoke out against human
rights abuses committed by the government, and who provided
humanitarian assistance to citizens. It seems to me, like in
every other government that we hope will matriculate from a
dictatorship to a true thriving democracy, the churches, the
faith community plays a key role in the cruelty that is being
visited upon clergy and faith individuals who speak out. I
would appreciate your views on that.
And finally, you mentioned, Dr. Tupy, the Chinese prisoners
that you reported upon, were they from Chinese gulags, brought
in from China? Is that what you were talking about? And where
does the wealth gleaned from the diamonds go? Does it go to
Swiss bank accounts? Do we have any sense as to how that money
was tracked, as the colonels and the generals rip off their own
people who don't benefit from the diamond mines, for example,
because it goes into their bank accounts?
Mr. Tupy. Sure. I will start with the last question.
The story of Zimbabwean prisoners working in the mines is
well established. In terms of the Chinese prisoners, these are
anecdotal stories that I heard from Zimbabweans, many of them
former farm owners or laborers whom I contacted in the last,
say, few months. Obviously, those are, as I said, anecdotal
stories.All I was told, these are Chinese prisoners who are
working there. I don't know whether these are political
prisoners or prisoners who have been in prison----
Mr. Smith. They are from China?
Mr. Tupy. They are Chinese, yes. The Chinese have a long-
established practice of importing their own labor into African
countries. In many other circumstances, instances like the one
in Zambia, for example, the Chinese laborers seem to be free
individuals who do so willingly. Not so in Zimbabwe where they
are perceived to have a forced labor or, if you will, slave
labor.
I do not know specifically about gold. I do know that
diamonds are exported out of Zimbabwe legally because the
country is allowed to do so under the Kimberley Process, of
which the United States is a part and perhaps could wield some
influence there. And obviously, the companies that do so are
very tightly connected to either the Russian or the South
African Governments. We all know about the interaction between
the South African Government, ANC government, and the ZANU-PF.
So it is not difficult to imagine that there is a deal whereby
some of the proceeds find themselves flowing back into the
country, specifically to the Zimbabwean military and the top
echelons of the ZANU-PF.
Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Chairman. I will just add, on the
diamond sector, the national budget presented to Parliament
last week indicated that the proceeds from diamonds was $41
million U.S., with about $8 million which are still supposed to
be remitted.
Now, if you look at the analysis that was done on the
diamond sector, Zimbabwe is supposed to get at least $2 billion
annually from its diamonds, in addition to the natural
resources sector. So, clearly, there is a shortchanging that is
going on, because the diamonds sector is not subjected to the
extractive industry's transparent initiatives or other
processes that are enhancing revenue collection to final
development imperatives in the country. So we will continue to
be plagued and, in fact, threatened by the problems of the
resource curse, when the richness of the country is starting to
become a curse, unless there is a greater transparency on that
front.
On the trafficking person question, I think it mirrors the
fact that Zimbabwe's development indicated that it declined
dramatically. With an unemployment rate of 90 percent, with a
poverty level of 95 percent, moving from 62 percent in 1995,
clearly the options for survival are diminishing, and people
become vulnerable to sharks and other people who are dealing in
persons. And I think none but renewal of political institutions
of government, effective policing and employment creation will
stop the process that you have described. Thank you.
Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to add on to what Mr. Muchena has commented on the
issue of diamonds, I think the issue that most of the inventory
itself is now held in private is actually--it is a cover. And
that is one in a way where you actually call these sanctions-
busting measures are actually, because most of these companies,
you may be surprised, their identity is not being exposed for
the simple reason that some of these companies may actually be
coming from countries which has imposed restrictive measures
also on Zimbabwe in terms of doing business.
So the issue of the involvement of these--the local fair is
sort of a coercive approach on how these measures which are in
place are being implemented shows--is actually a sort of trip
down to the issues of the sale of diamonds in terms of
transparency.
And to the extension that this has actually provided a war
chest for the ZANU-PF in the upcoming elections that they are
fully involved in, that most of the claims, they are actually--
you know, most of the other side of the government, like the
ministers, even the Finance Minister, even the Prime Minister
himself does not have the firsthand sort of understanding of
how operations around the diamonds are being conducted. And
this has actually given an avenue to actually to ZANU-PF to
actually build its war chest, ready to face the election head
on, fully resolved and then negotiate thereafter.
So actually you can actually see the issue of the diamonds
has actually become like the weapon which actually is going to
determine the political dynamics in the next 6 months. Thank
you.
Mr. McDonald. Mr. Smith, in terms of your questions one and
two, I absolutely share your abhorrence of that situation that
you have described, and I think that whatever policy
prescriptions we explore in terms of existing legislation and
how we move into the future here has got to take that into
account.
I have worked in conflicted countries throughout Africa. We
all know that human trafficking and the denial of religious
freedoms are often a result of failed societies; of the loss of
the normal sanctions of society; the destruction of family; the
undercutting of the moral authority of church, of school; of
the destruction of local governance. It is not just criminal--
well, it is criminal elements, but they are able to feed on
destruction of society, and it is an awful thing. It is
happening in other countries throughout Africa and throughout
the world. It is something that I am very glad you have
mentioned and I think needs to be focused on in terms of the
recovery of the society. We talk about renewal, in quotation
marks. There is no renewal if we don't address this question.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. What we are going to do is, I would
like to ask Ms. Woolsey if she would ask her questions and the
panel to think of the answer to hers, and would ask Mr. Flake
if he would also ask his questions before they answer. The
Members will have the right to leave when they feel it is
appropriate. We only have 4 minutes left. However, there are
over 370 Members who have not voted yet, which is the key
number. So we will leave it up to them. I usually stay longer
than most, but I used to be fast.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, all of you,
here is my question.
Through the lens of the people of Zimbabwe, have there been
any improvements over the last 18 months or 10 years in
general, and if so, who has led those improvements, or who have
impeded those improvements, and how vulnerable are the programs
themselves, and how vulnerable are the providers of those
programs?
And let us use health care, if you will, as our example,
health care, maternal health care, HIV/AIDS, cholera. What is
happening with those concerns, and are they being treated, and
how best can we, meaning the United States, the U.N., the EU,
get Zimbabwe healthy again?
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. I would actually follow up on some of the
questions with regard to mining and, really, the dynamic
between the Finance Minister, controlled by the opposition, and
the military, who control and seemingly funded back through.
But I mean, if we are--I think the budget was introduced last
week, $2.7 million. It was indicated by the Finance Minister
that that represented all domestic revenue sources, not aid
from the outside. How true is that?
I mean, and is mining, you mentioned it could be as high as
$2 billion. That is an annual figure, it could be? And we are
only capturing $40 million or so there? Is it assumed that that
amount is being plowed back into the military? Is that kind of
the infrastructure, and if so, how in the world can you go into
an election season satisfying the strictures that have been
laid out in terms of ensuring that it is free or fair when you
have that kind of money plowed back into the security structure
that is controlled by Mugabe or ZANU-PF?
So, anyway, that was kind of the questions I was going to
ask. I will be satisfied with that. After we come back, I
guess.
Mr. Payne. Gentlemen, you may answer any way you would
like.
Mr. Tupy. I will try to answer, first of all, Congressman
Flake.
Reports that I have seen suggested hundreds of millions of
dollars annually are being plowed back into the military and to
the top party members and also for the police force. Both of
these, the military and the police, are obviously absolutely
vital. Their behavior will be vital in terms of whether the
election will be free or fair.
And in answer to your second question, no, I don't believe
that the election under these circumstances can be free and
fair, especially if the threat of violence by the repressive
state apparatus is going to hang over the opposition as the
sword of Damocles.
And to you, Congresswoman Woolsey, the improvements in
terms of health care and welfare in general in Zimbabwe happen
because of simply the ability and the willingness of the
Zimbabwean people to basically take care of themselves. They
were prohibited from doing so by hyperinflation, which ran to
trillions of percent, and also by political violence. Once
hyperinflation was subdued and they were able to deal in a
normal currency, such as the U.S. dollar and the South African
rand, and once political violence had subsided, people returned
to what they do best, which is to improve their lot. And so we
are seeing gradual increases in welfare in Zimbabwe, and I
would expect those to continue until the political situation
doesn't become unbearable again.
Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would start by answering Congresswoman Woolsey's
question. I think that there has been a lot of improvement. I
think that is what we started by saying that there has been
dramatic improvement in the 2 years since the Global Political
Agreement was consummated, and specifically on the sectors that
you talked about, health, education.
Keep in mind that Zimbabwe has a proud investment record in
education and health on the continent, with leading industries,
up until 2000, and the continent started to dramatically
collapse. But in the last year alone, all schools that had been
closed in 2007 and 2008 were opened, which was good. We also
had health sectors opening up, and we also had cholera which
had been totally eliminated, which had become a scourge.
So there has been improvement. This improvement is now
being affected by the threat to the return of the old order. I
think that is the point we are making.
In terms of the economy, the mining sector, the total
contribution of the mining sector of the budget was 44 percent,
and that not only includes diamonds, it also includes gold,
platinum, and so on. And as a result of the restoration of
stability, we started to see profits in the mining sector. So
what needs to actually happen is a much more predictable
economic management system and economic government system to
fully exploit the opportunity of a buoyant mining sector in
Zimbabwe which can actually finance the budget.
This has been why Minister Biti could not rely on foreign
dollars coming in the budget because the vote of credit was
expected to be at $800 million. They have only mobilized $200
million in the last year. So he decided, no, let us go it
alone. This is why I am saying 60 percent of the resolution of
the Zimbabwean crisis can be done domestically, through
reforming laws, political reforms and so on, and the
international can accompany that progress. And I think part of
the record is being indicated in the Minister of Finance's
conduct, including ensuring that the government and central
bank is quarantined to a more central governance role than what
they have been doing in the last couple of years. Thank you.
Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Chairman.
Just to keep on quickly to what Mr. Muchena has said, I
think the general attitude of the people of Zimbabwe is really
seeing the benefits of the inclusive government in the past 18
months. To an extent, this is the feeling which is driving the
general dislike of having, let's call it a premature call for
an election. The people wanted this inclusive government to be
sustained for a period of maybe 2 to for the next 3 years or so
to allow the green shoots which are happening in the
noneconomic front to actually sort of be sustained.
We probably will see a vast improvement in education, you
know, in terms of schools, textbooks, and all in the collective
of the human talent plans extended especially at the onset of
the inclusive government.
I believe this is what--actually, when people look at the
next election coming, the fears are for a relapse to the pre-
March 2008 where the shops were not in food. Right now there is
a growing fear that if this election talk reaches a crescendo
after the new year, we are actually going to see a situation
where there will be a situation of small capital flight which
was in going out, shortages of food because of political
instability.
No wonder why is what we have been restating on this panel,
that what needs to be done in the next 6 months in terms of
doing a course correction in terms of engaging with South
Africa and SADC is to go to villages and to answer is Zimbabwe
ready for an election? And I think this should be looked into
what context of the reforms and the need to have the country to
heal before any other election can be held.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. A quick response.
Mr. McDonald. Yeah, to Congresswoman Woolsey's question.
First of all, when you asked it, you said, has there been any
improvements in the last 10 years and last 18 months? Very,
very important to keep those time frames in mind because of the
last 10 years, absolutely not; in the last 18 months, yes. It
is not coincidental, and it has been mentioned that that is
coinciding with the September 2008 GPA and the formulation of
the coalition government.
You asked who and how any improvements that have taken
place have come about. In these last 3 years or so
approximately years since GPA, there has been an increased flow
of foreign aid, around $800 million a year, and that has been
very targeted, not through government; very targeted in health,
education, water, sanitation. So it really has been of great
assistance, I believe, and created the situation of
improvement.
The Ministry of Finance, already been discussed or
reiterated, attacking the inflation problem, attacking the--
decoupling the currency and going back to U.S. dollar basis has
really helped, but what Dr. Tupy said is very important. The
people are resilient. I think what you are seeing here is also
reflected in their hope for the future; not just their
resilience and relying on themselves and getting by and getting
through, but because they see hope for the future, there is a
renewed spirit. Obviously that hope can be dashed very easily
if the coalition government doesn't work, if the elections
don't come about, Constitution isn't put in place. But I think
we are seeing that rising aspiration now as people are hopeful
that things may come right.
Mr. Payne. Let me certainly thank the panel. Unfortunately
we are going to have to leave in a minute, but I also agree
that I think Zimbabwe has a great future if we can get over
this hurdle of the next 6 months are important, if we can move
to a new Zimbabwe.
Let me ask for unanimous consent that Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, so ordered.
Once again, let me thank the witnesses for being here. It
is my hope that H.R. 5971 will be seriously considered, and
that the U.S. policy will take full advantage of the window of
opportunity in Zimbabwe.
Thank you all again for your testimony, and the meeting
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.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]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
