[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF U.S.--ZIMBABWE RELATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 3, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-128
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-836 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
CURT CLAWSON, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Shannon Smith, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
African Affairs, U.S. Department of State...................... 5
Mr. Ben Freeth, Executive Director, Mike Campbell Foundation..... 20
Ms. Imani Countess, Regional Program Director for Africa, The
Solidarity Center.............................................. 36
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Shannon Smith, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 8
Mr. Ben Freeth: Prepared statement............................... 23
Ms. Imani Countess: Prepared statement........................... 38
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
THE FUTURE OF U.S.-ZIMBABWE RELATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:57 p.m., in
room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The subcommittee will come to
order.
And let me begin by apologizing to all of you, especially
our distinguished witnesses, for the lateness. We did have a
series of 10 votes. Right?
Ms. Bass. Fourteen.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Fourteen votes. So it took a
little time, and I apologize.
Good afternoon.
Zimbabwe is a country, as we know, the size of Montana with
a population of nearly 14 million people. However, its mineral
wealth gives it an outsized importance. The southern Africa
nation is the world's largest source of platinum, gold group-
metals, and has significant reserves of nickel, gold, chromium,
and dozens of other metals and minerals. Significant diamond
reserves were discovered in 2006.
Currently, about 40 percent of the country's foreign
exchange is earned from the export of these metals and
minerals. But, above all, its people are its greatest resource.
The abundance of such minerals, however, and their
exploitation, which has driven the relationship between many in
the West and Zimbabwe, since its colonization by Cecil Rhodes
of the British South Africa Company in 1889 on behalf of Great
Britain, the area once known as Southern Rhodesia has
experienced a tumultuous history. The White minority gained
self-governance in 1922, and a 1930 Land Apportionment Act
restricted Black access to land, making many Africans laborers
and not landowners.
In 1964, the White minority government unsuccessfully
sought independence from Great Britain and then unilaterally
declared independence a year later under White rule. This move
sparked international outrage in economic sanctions, and that
regime was never widely recognized by the international
community, though the support of White ruled South Africa
enabled the government to limp along.
Meanwhile, Black opposition to minority rule, which began
in the 1930s, erupted in the gorilla war in 1972. Attempts to
end the conflict diplomatically failed until the 1979 talks
brokered by Great Britain resulted in British supervised
independence elections.
The winner of that election was Robert Mugabe, leader of
the Zimbabwe African National Union, or ZANU, who at age 91
continues to rule this country in large part through
intimidation and manipulation of elections.
As a hero of the independence and majority rule movements,
however, Mugabe has enjoyed the support of many other African
leaders who have considered him an honored elder and have
generally declined to join international efforts to sanction
his government. This has placed the United States in an awkward
position with limited African support for political and
economic reforms that the people so desperately need in
Zimbabwe.
Although many observers have credited the Mugabe Government
with productive management until fairly recent years, there
were political problems from the beginning of his rule. For
example, Mugabe fired fellow independence leader Joshua Nkomo
in 1982 and then launched a campaign to suppress what his
government called a rebellion by pro-Nkomo forces.
The Mugabe regime has been accused of killing thousands of
ethnic Ndebele citizens over the next few years to end the
supposed rebellion, assisted by military advisers from East
Germany and North Korea.
Once one of the leading industrial nations in Africa,
Zimbabwe has long been in an economic downward spiral in the
1990s. It began then. Squatters, with the support of the
Zimbabwe Government, seized White farms they claim to have been
stolen by White settlers in the past. Despite government
assurances these farms were not transferred to Black farm
workers, but, rather, to cronies of the Mugabe government,
euphemistically called veterans, who lacked agricultural
experience.
Both Blacks and Whites in Zimbabwe acknowledge that the
land policies have been unfair, but the manner of addressing
this problem led to serious economic problems for the country.
Agricultural production fell, and the manufacturing sector,
heavily tied to agriculture, also diminished.
Efforts to squeeze currency from shrinking national
reserves, from businesses, coupled with the disastrous
requirement that businesses use the fictitious exchange rate,
caused retailers to lose money with each and every sale. The
effort to close the many vendors who supply tourists with
souvenirs and citizens with necessary household items was yet
another milestone in Zimbabwe's economic collapse.
By the year 2006, the year-on-year inflation exceeded 1,000
percent. Devaluation of the currency and the subsequent use of
foreign currency are credited with eventually preventing a
complete economic collapse.
Zimbabwe and the United States have had a tempestuous
relationship since that southern African nation emerged from
White minority rule. Part of the problem has been resentment by
Zimbabwean President Mugabe and his closest advisers against
the United States for not supporting their liberation movement,
the backdrop to which was the geopolitical conflict between the
Soviet Union and the United States.
Another part of the problem has been the justifiable public
criticism of repressive political policies by the Mugabe
government by successive U.S. administrations. Consequently,
the minimal communications between our two governments have
contributed to suspicions and an inability for the U.S.
officials to reach out to and be cooperative with Zimbabwe
officials.
Successive elections have been the subject of opposition
and international criticism for the lack of political space,
allowed for those who would challenge the ruling ZANU party.
Arrests, incarcerations, torture in custody, beatings at public
rallies and demonstrations, and disappearances of government
opponents have denied legitimacy to the Zimbabwe election
process.
The country's commitment to democratic governance has been
further placed in question due to a series of repressive laws
preventing freedoms of speech, association, and movement. As if
the government's repressive tactics are not troubling enough,
political jockeying in Zimbabwe, including the dismissal of
Vice President Joice Mujuru, places the succession to President
Mugabe in doubt, which puts U.S. policy in question.
Today's hearing will examine current U.S. policy toward
Zimbabwe and the prospects for an enhanced relationship,
depending on events that have not yet taken place. Of course,
in foreign policy, one cannot wait until the crisis
materializes in order to create a planned response and have
contingencies. A leader nearing the century mark, presiding
over a fractious political scene in a country that has
experienced political and economic turmoil, creates a situation
which planning for positive outcome to regime change must be
devised.
Zimbabwe is a country rich in both natural and human
potential. Once the resentments of the current old guard have
passed and democratic governance can be established, U.S.-
Zimbabwe relations can become what they have never been,
harmonious and mutually beneficial.
I would like to yield to my colleague, Ms. Bass, for any
opening comments.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing will allow us to explore important issues that
affect our relations with Zimbabwe, including governance and
accountability, economic development, and press freedoms and
human rights.
I want to thank today's witnesses for participating in this
hearing, including Dr. Smith from the U.S. State Department and
representatives from civil organizations focusing on the issues
of labor, trade, and human rights.
I look forward to hearing your perspectives on developments
in Zimbabwe and the country's relationship with us. I also hope
to hear from witnesses as to how the U.S. is currently working
with either nongovernmental organizations or Zimbabwe civil
society groups to support transparency and accountability in
governance, increase political space, and improve economic
environment.
At the beginning of his tenure, sadly, I mean, Mugabe was
praised by many as a force for liberating the Zimbabwean
people. Obviously, the current government has been marked by
challenges in suppression of voices, a restrictive electoral
process, and a lack of transparency in national elections.
With little opposition, the current administration, as well
as the country's Parliament, is overwhelmingly comprised of
members of Mugabe's political party, making voices of dissent
hard-pressed to have their perspectives and grievances heard.
With President Mugabe as chair of both the Southern African
Development Community and the African Union, which, obviously,
are key regional bodies for both economic development and
governance, I would like to hear from today's witnesses what
they think the effect of his leadership will be on both bodies,
particularly with so many elections happening on the continent
in the next couple of years.
And in terms of U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 sets out a range of
targeted economic sanctions and restrictions on certain types
of aid to the region. Zimbabwe is also currently ineligible for
trade benefits under other U.S. initiatives. I would like to
know from the witnesses what you feel the impact of those
policies have been.
In closing, I would like to recognize and thank our
witnesses once again. And I hope to explore the most effective
approaches to ensure that we improve U.S.-Zimbabwe relations
through supporting its citizens' efforts for increased
democratic governance and economic opportunity.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Ms. Bass, thank you so very much.
We are very privileged to welcome a new member of the
subcommittee and a new number of Congress, Congressman Daniel
Donovan. Just a brief bio on Dan.
He was elected in New York, represents the 11th
Congressional District, which encompasses all of Staten Island
and southern Brooklyn. Congressman Donovan was elected on May 5
and sworn in on May 13.
A native Staten Islander, Congressman Donovan has dedicated
his life to serving the people of New York. He began his career
as a prosecutor, serving 8 years under Manhattan District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau.
Congressman Donovan began serving his native Staten Island
in 1996 as chief of staff to then-Borough President Guy
Molinari.
I would note, parenthetically, that Guy Molinari and I got
elected to Congress in 1980 when Ronald Reagan got elected. So
Guy is an old friend, a good friend, but he served as his chief
of staff.
In January 2002, he was appointed Deputy Borough President
under Borough President James Molinaro. In November 2003,
Congressman Donovan was elected Richmond County District
Attorney, where he remained in that office for over a decade.
He is a member of Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs
Committees and now a new member of our subcommittee.
And welcome, Congressman Donovan. I yield to you.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bass, for your welcoming.
Being a Member of Congress for 3 weeks and this being my
first subcommittee meeting, I look forward to hearing from all
witnesses. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, my friend
Dan.
We now would like to welcome Dr. Shannon Smith, who was
appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of
African Affairs in May 2013. Prior to joining the State
Department, she served as senior policy adviser for Africa and
Global Health for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from
2007 to 2013.
As a senior staffer for Africa, she traveled widely on the
continent, leading staff delegations and accompanying the
chairman on numerous trips to Sudan and South Sudan, during the
process leading up to the 2011 referendum on independence.
Prior to her work in the policy area, Dr. Smith was a history
professor.
And I yield such time as you may consume.
STATEMENT OF SHANNON SMITH, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass.
And welcome, Congressman Donovan.
Thank you for holding this hearing on Zimbabwe and for
inviting me to testify before you. We appreciate the deep
interest of this subcommittee and are pleased to work with
Congress in support of our national interests in Zimbabwe and
in the region.
Last month, traveling with my counterpart from the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, I went to Zimbabwe to
engage in a series of meetings with our Embassy, the
government, opposition members, and civil society. The purposes
of the trip were to reaffirm U.S. messages of support for the
people of Zimbabwe, to communicate our hopes for democratic
reforms and economic development, and to better understand the
situation on the ground.
Fundamentally, Zimbabwe remains trapped in a moment of time
that has been unfolding for decades. President Robert Mugabe
maintains his hold on power, as you noted, as a result of the
2013 elections that were neither free nor fair. The country's
economy is failing, driven down not by international sanctions,
but by national policies and rampant unemployment. Once a
breadbasket for the region, it faces major food security
challenges in the months to come.
Political rights remain curtailed. Outright violence has
declined compared to previous years, but prominent examples
such as the disappearance of activist Itai Dzamara reminds
Zimbabweans that their safety is elusive. Both the ruling party
and the opposition appear to be fragmenting, adding to an
environment of uncertainty and, therefore, unease.
Against this backdrop U.S. interests in Zimbabwe remain the
same, a peaceful democratic and prosperous country that
provides for its people and contributes to regional stability.
To realize our interests, we strongly believe in engagement
with government and nongovernment alike, to promote our values,
and work together in areas of common concern. We view this
ongoing dialogue as part of building the bilateral
relationship.
Current circumstances do not merit a change in our policy,
but we remain hopeful that in the future they will. We strive
to balance our targeted sanctions on those who have impinged
upon human rights and the rule of law with our encouragement of
economic reforms and investment.
We stand by the commitments we made to the people of
Zimbabwe at their independence in 1980 to work together to
promote democratic institutions, equitable economic growth,
public health, and food security. To this end, the United
States has provided over $2.6 billion in development and
humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe since its independence.
Zimbabwe's economy, as I noted, is failing. While the
country made headway in curbing hyperinflation during the
period of the government of national unity between 2008 and
2013, today the economy is again in desperate straits. The
civil service wage bill alone eats up an unsustainable 80
percent of total expenditures, leaving very little in the
government to run operations or support investments in the
country's degrading infrastructure.
The formal economy has shrunk to a small fraction of
Zimbabwe's citizens. Unemployment estimates range as high as 80
percent or even higher. To add to the country's woes, poor
rains, building on disastrous agricultural policies in past
years, are projected to leave millions of Zimbabweans facing
food insecurity. The Government of Zimbabwe continues to blame
U.S. targeted sanctions for its economic hardships. But, in
reality, these bleak conditions were created by the government
itself.
The World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index rates
Zimbabwe as 171st out of 189 countries in the world.
Transparency International also places them in the bottom 20 in
its Corruption Perceptions Index. Other barriers to
international investment include a lack of clarity about
indigenization policies, failures to safeguard property rights,
and the uneven application of the rule of law.
Political developments and uncertainties are exacerbating
economic problems and vice versa. Internal struggles over
possible succession within ZANU-PF, the ruling party, continue
to dominate political discourse and impede hopes for reform.
In December 2014, President Mugabe dismissed one of his
Vice Presidents, Joice Mujuru, who had long been thought to be
a possible favorite to succeed him. This was followed by a
series of cabinet shuffles and party expulsions of her
perceived supporters.
Within the party, factions are forming as potential
successors vie for positions of power. In the meantime, at age
91, President Mugabe remains firmly in charge, and there are no
indications he plans to step down.
Zimbabwe's opposition has failed to capitalize on these
fissures in ZANU-PF and unite behind a common vision. The
opposition has become increasingly splintered itself with new
breakaway parties forming under other leadership.
This political fracturing underscores the importance of the
United States standing firmly on democratic principles, rule of
law and human rights, and encouraging the government and
opposition alike to make progress in those areas.
The United States places the protection of human rights at
the center of our foreign policy and has longstanding concerns
about violations of human rights, including intimidation,
harassment, and torture.
The United States remains gravely concerned about reports
of the forced disappearance of Zimbabwe and civil society
activist Itai Dzamara on March 9. To date, his whereabouts and
his well-being remain unknown.
Mr. Dzamara gained notoriety after he presented a letter to
the Office of the President and Cabinet in 2014, demanding that
President Mugabe step down for failing the Zimbabwean people.
During our recent visit to Zimbabwe, my colleague and I
raised this case with the government and in virtually every
public and private meeting. The United States stands with Mr.
Dzamara and the people of Zimbabwe in defending the rights to
freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
And for all its challenges--and their numbers are legion--I
was struck on this trip once again by the resilience and
tremendous capacity of the Zimbabwean people. As one gentleman
told me, there is nothing in his country that is not fixable.
The United States shares that conviction and that hope.
When I was in Harare last month, several people asked me as
well if Americans still cared about what was happening in their
country. Hearings such as this are, in fact, proof that we do.
So thank you for providing me this opportunity to speak with
your subcommittee today. Thank you for holding this hearing.
And I welcome any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Dr. Smith, thank you so very much,
and thanks for underscoring the fact that the people are not
only resilient, but they have hope. And I think the more we can
build on that hope and do whatever tangibly we can do to assist
so there is a matriculation from the current crisis to a better
day, the better.
And along those lines, I am very concerned, and maybe you
can elaborate on that, having just been there and seen on the
ground what is happening.
I will never forget, you know, when Andrew Natsios was head
of USAID and he worked for years in the emergency response
area--made the point--and you said it again when you said how
Zimbabwe was a breadbasket--he, too, was beside himself that
the early warning indicators are that a famine was in the
offing and that starvation and malnutrition was about to go
from bad to worse.
And I am wondering if you can give any insights as to the
state of play right now. Because we know there are some
concerns about food insecurity in Zimbabwe. And what is
projected for the next 6 months or so with regards to that
situation?
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes. As Mr. Natsios had noted, and as we continue to note,
this is a really productive, fertile country, but it is not one
with effective production. Its policies have made that certain.
Last year they enjoyed really good rains and they had
pretty good harvests. This year that has not been the case. And
so the forecasts for maize, in particular, are pretty grim, and
there are potentially millions of people in Zimbabwe who may be
in need of food assistance.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Are there contingency plans
underway, USAID, from a disaster----
Ms. Smith. There are. Yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey [continuing]. Assistance point of
view?
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And has the early-warning
mechanism worked in terms of forecasting what might be needed
and when?
Ms. Smith. I think it has. And I think that they are
forecasting what is described as crisis or stage 3 of 5 levels
of food insecurity.
So it is a situation in which the international community
does have time to respond. And some of the neighboring
countries and others can look for support there, but it is very
much on our minds.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Now, are we ready, notwithstanding
sanctions--because, obviously, humanitarian trumps sanctions,
particularly targeted sanctions. Are we ready? Do we have
sufficient sources to meet that need, working in concert with
our international partners?
Ms. Smith. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. If you could get back, you know,
for the record with, you know, an analysis of what it looks
like, you know, just so that we are helpful, too, on the
congressional side, you know, to make sure that we don't get a
deja vu with people suffering from that malnutrition.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from Shannon Smith, Ph.D., to Question Asked
During the Hearing by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Let me ask you, if I could, about
when on September 12, 2013, you testified--and Ms. Bass and I
were very happy to welcome you then when you provided expert
testimony--you made a point that we will not be swayed by the
attempts of President Mugabe and his party to blame Zimbabwe's
economic misfortunes and disastrous economic mismanagement on
the United States and other countries' governments that
maintain targeted sanctions on select groups of individuals and
entities.
Is that still the case, there is a blame game going on?
And, most importantly, if you could, just for the record
again outline those sanctions. What is in place? How targeted
are they? And did you hear appeals to change those sanctions
when you were there?
Ms. Smith. Yes, sir. We did. And our policy does remain
largely the same. We have sanctions on fewer than 200
individuals or entities, approximately 106 individuals and 70
entities, and they are intended to be targeted. They are aimed
at individuals who have disrupted democracy or engaged in
corruption and other acts.
The Department of Treasury, the OFAC office, evaluates
those situations. The list of individuals itself is considered
to be a living, breathing list. We want to examine it
periodically. We want to make sure that it is still valid and
that if there are people who should be removed or entities or
added to it, that is part of the process. But, more
fundamentally, it remains the strongest statement, I think, of
American values.
Does the Zimbabwe Government continue to blame their woes
on it? Absolutely. They attempt to use it as a propaganda tool.
And we discussed these questions with a number of people in
Zimbabwe, from the business community to civil society,
including human rights activists, and opinion in Zimbabwe is
divided, there is no question. Even among the human rights
community, there are some who argue that, ``Well, it is a
propaganda tool for the government. So you should consider
it.''
I think, in our mind, the government's attempts to use it
as a propaganda tool don't change the fundamental reasons for
which sanctions were imposed. And so then it becomes incumbent
on us to offer a counterargument, which we have done. There is
no better representative of these values and of the American
desire to see the other almost 14 million people in Zimbabwe
prosper than our Ambassador, Bruce Wharton, who does everything
he can to promote economic growth outside of that small section
of targeted sanctions.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Dr. Smith, in your testimony, you
made a disturbing observation that Zimbabwe's opposition has
failed to capitalize on the fissures in the ZANU-PF and unite
behind a common vision. The opposition has become increasingly
splintered.
One, could you elaborate on that? What does that look like
in terms of splintering? Is it just a multitude of parties?
Secondly--and my final question--Imani Countess the African
Regional Program Director for the Solidarity Center, offers
criticism--and I would just like to know what your response is
to it--that U.S. funding for democracy, human rights, and
governance programs in Africa through the U.S. Agency for
International Development has been declining despite
extraordinary need, down 40 percent since 2008. And I am
wondering if, you know, you can provide some insight into that
criticism.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Yes. On the question of the opposition, it is a matter of
and record now that the opposition has been splintering, that
the Movement for Democratic Change now has multiple Movements
for Democratic Change within it under separate leadership. And
some of that is about differences of opinion, about differences
of leadership. But I think that what is happening is that there
is no unifying message at the moment that stretches across
these parties.
Certainly young people told us that they were looking for a
more unifying message across the opposition and for a vision of
where someone would take their country beyond the partisan
questions themselves. Those are differences that are going to
play out and that is up to the people of Zimbabwe and their
leaders on how that goes.
So I think that, for us, it is most important to continue
to talk about the broader issues of reform and to continue to
support reformers. And the political parties will evolve as
they evolve, and we hope that, through that process, they come
forward with a real vision for where they want to take their
country.
Democracy and governance remains a top priority for our
Government clearly in Africa and elsewhere. We all know it is a
difficult budget environment, and we are all looking for ways
to do more. In Zimbabwe, we have exercised democracy and
governance programs through examples such as voter education
during a constitutional process so that people in Zimbabwe
understood, as the constitution was being drafted and voted on,
what that meant for their country.
Other examples of what we are doing with the money that we
do have are, for example, connecting women in agriculture with
Members of Parliament so that they hear their voices and that
they understand that, trying to support civil society in a
variety of ways, trying to make sure that those human rights
actors have a place to be heard. And so, in spite of a
difficult budget environment, we are going to continue to try
and do that.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Ranking Member Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just following up on that, I am wondering if there is going
to be any reorganization. I mean, I know that there were a lot
of initiatives at USAID, and I know there is a change in
leadership now. And I didn't know if funds were being
reconsidered to increase in the democracy and governance area.
Ms. Smith. I think I would have to leave that to my
colleagues from USAID, but I can ask them to get back to you on
that.
Ms. Bass. Okay. You mentioned sanctions and you mentioned
the list being fluid. And I was wondering, number one, if there
are sanctions against the Vice President and if you could speak
a little bit about it.
Ms. Smith. Yes. The First Vice President is a sanctioned
individual. In general, we prefer to talk about sanctions in a
broader way than to dwell on the individuals themselves.
But they are based on past acts. And along with the other
individuals who are on that list, we continue to maintain.
Ms. Bass. Well, I really would like to understand how that
works. I mean, I know, in theory, there is a sanction against
an individual. I don't really know what that means. He is not
coming to the U.S. So what exactly does that mean? How do you
have sanctions against an individual in Zimbabwe?
Ms. Smith. Sanctions can take different forms. They can
take, for example, travel bans.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ms. Smith. They can take prohibitions on American
enterprise, American businesses or banks doing business with
that individual.
Ms. Bass. But how does that really have--I mean, just
taking one of the individuals, how does that have an impact if
they are not coming to the U.S. and they don't do business? He
is the Vice President, for example. So how is that meaningful?
Ms. Smith. I think the degree to which the government
protests the sanctions and the degree to which, in meetings
with us and others, that they argue that they should be lifted
speaks to their effect.
Ms. Bass. Yeah. Well, but, as you mentioned, there is a lot
of different types of sanctions. I understand the economic
sanctions. I understand that. And I am sure they are protesting
all of the sanctions because everybody does.
But I am just wondering how that actually has an effect. So
it is more a political effect than symbolic as opposed to it
really hitting them the individual sanctions?
Ms. Smith. I mean, in our case, these are bilateral
sanctions. So they are not global in scope. They can be active
in other economic affairs.
But I think they do have an economic effect. They certainly
have a political effect. And they have a branding effect.
Ms. Bass. Okay. In recent years, Zimbabwe has strengthened
trade and military ties with China, including the construction
of a Chinese military base in eastern Zimbabwe.
If you could, speak to that. I think there are obviously
security implications for the U.S., for a military alliance
between the two countries. But what do we know about that
development?
Ms. Smith. I think the countries clearly enjoy a close
relationship. China is active in much of Africa, as you have
seen in many places, I know.
Ms. Bass. We often talk about it economically, but not
militarily.
Ms. Smith. And in a country which is suffering from so much
poverty, military expenditures in those ways are difficult, it
seems to me, to justify.
I think that the Chinese Government, too, is looking at
Zimbabwe and certainly on the economic front, asking some hard
questions about investing in that country and providing other
forms of assistance.
Ms. Bass. They are asking hard. What does that mean?
Ms. Smith. I think that, like everyone else, they want to
know where, for example, Zimbabwe's indigenization laws are
going to take them----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ms. Smith [continuing]. In terms of investment.
And I think that, as long as that uncertainty prevails, I
think even from countries from China, which they have enjoyed a
relationship over the years--I think they will find it
increasingly difficult to do business.
Ms. Bass. Could you speak to what their current investments
are in Zimbabwe, the Chinese? I mean, I am going to ask you
some more about the military base in a minute, but----
Ms. Smith. I don't have dollar figures on them precisely.
Ms. Bass. No. Not the dollar figures. What sectors they are
particularly active in.
Ms. Smith. I think mining in particular. As the chairman
noted in his opening statement, it is the biggest business
there, and mineral resources and other resources, other
extractive industries.
Ms. Bass. Are they employing Zimbabweans on the military
base?
Ms. Smith. I couldn't tell you that.
Ms. Bass. Okay. I mean, you know, one of the
characteristics of some Chinese investment is they go over and
build roads and build other things, but they employ Chinese,
not necessarily folks from the country.
Okay. I yield, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When you speak to the citizens of Zimbabwe, do they know of
our support? Do they know that the United States supports them?
Ms. Smith. I think some do and some don't. If they only
listen to the government in Zimbabwe, they would not know.
Mr. Donovan. Okay. But when you go there and your
colleagues go there, they are aware that we support them?
Ms. Smith. Yes. And I think there is a lot of appreciation.
There was enormous warmth that I found toward the United States
in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Donovan. I thought I heard in your opening statement
that we have given--I think it was $8 billion in aid. Was that
a correct figure? Or something around that figure.
Does that aid get to the people who need it or does their
country withhold that from the people who are in need?
Ms. Smith. No. In fact, we very much direct that aid. It is
$2.6 billion since their independence in 1980. Of that, last
year we provided about $175 million in aid. About two-thirds of
that was for health assistance, much of that for HIV/AIDS, also
to fight malaria and tuberculosis.
We work through civil society, through nongovernmental
organizations, faith-based organizations. Those are our
partners who help deliver that assistance.
Mr. Donovan. And that gets to the citizens who are in need.
Ms. Smith. It does.
Mr. Donovan. Wonderful.
Ms. Smith. I think we have saved hundreds of thousands,
probably millions, of lives over the years.
Mr. Donovan. Wonderful. Wonderful.
Are there other things that we should be doing?
Ms. Smith. I think it is important that we keep the lines
of communication open. I think that we want to maintain a
respectful dialogue, and I think that that is one way that we
underscore the importance of our message.
It is also important that we continue to provide the kind
of support we have and the kind of platform for people who are
brave enough to speak up in Zimbabwe to help provide the
opportunity for them to do so.
Mr. Donovan. And your direct support gives us credibility
with the people there?
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Donovan. All right. Wonderful.
And my last question: Do our allies assist us at all? Are
they assisting the people who are in need in Zimbabwe?
Ms. Smith. Yes. There are a number of countries that are
active and providing assistance, sir.
Mr. Donovan. Wonderful. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Clawson.
Mr. Clawson. Thanks for coming.
So when I think of Zimbabwe--and I have been to Zimbabwe--I
kind of think of opportunity lost. And if I went back to the
1980s or 1990s and I thought of Mugabe and the leadership and
would have guessed that we would be where we are today, who
would have sensed that. Right?
And so my own thinking and feeling about the country
evolves over time, and I am now to the point where I say to
myself: Until we have new leadership at the top of the country,
why would we do anything besides humanitarian? Am I wrong about
that?
And I am not saying we are doing a lot besides
humanitarian. But, you know, it feels like not a good--with
that leadership, it feels like a place to do the right thing
for the people and the humanitarian aspects of it. But, beyond
that, pretty hopeless in terms of using our money and
resources. Am I right about that?
Ms. Smith. Well, our policy for a number of years now has
been essentially characterized as humanitarian plus, so strict,
clear life-saving aid, assistance, such as antiretrovirals for
people with HIV/AIDS or food assistance for someone who is
dying or faces starvation.
But at the same time we are also providing some assistance
in areas such as trying to create conditions for food security,
so promoting some better agricultural practices for small
landholders in rural Zimbabwe. I think that is still worth
doing.
Mr. Clawson. Do you?
Ms. Smith. I do. Because, if we don't do it, their
government isn't going to do it, and no one will. And I think
the other thing we are doing is we are laying the foundation
for the future and for what comes next in Zimbabwe.
It is a country that could be exporting food. It is a
country that could be a source of larger stability in the
region. And I think we want to prepare for that day.
Mr. Clawson. And so, in preparing for that day, it also
feels like, to me, that, if I was a typical citizen in
Zimbabwe, I wouldn't really much believe in free markets and
capitalism or anything else because a small amount of people
keep everything. And so, no matter how hard I work, I don't get
a lot to eat and I get sick. Am I wrong about that?
Ms. Smith. They are really an impressive collection of
people, and it is a very entrepreneurial society. It is a
country in which, sadly, one of the main forms of economic
activity right now is people who are street vendors with almost
nothing, trying desperately to make a living.
Mr. Clawson. But what percentage of the wealth is kept by
just a small amount of the ruling oligopoly, if you will?
Ms. Smith. An enormous percentage. But to give you an
example, the Young African Leaders Initiative has an
entrepreneur segment to it where about a third of the people
who come as part of the Mandela fellows, come to Washington and
to American universities for a number of months.
Zimbabweans participate in that program and they do so with
enormous energy and enthusiasm. And they are people who are
not--essentially, in spite of all the difficulties of doing
business--and they are pretty frank about that--they are not
really looking at things through a political lens. They are
looking through an economic lens and still seeing their country
as a place of opportunity.
It is a country that still very much values education. It
formerly had probably the highest levels of literacy on the
continent, and they are still quite high. People still really
sacrifice to send their kids to school, and they do it because
they see it as investing in their future. So they haven't given
up on that.
Mr. Clawson. Can I have one more question? Is that okay?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Sure.
Mr. Clawson. And what are the conditions of the--I mean, a
revenue producer for this country was always the natural
resources and the wildlife and so forth. I have read things in
the last several years that leave me a little depressed.
How would you characterize the state of the wildlife and
the possibility for tourism coming back, et cetera?
Ms. Smith. Both depressing and still there. That----
Mr. Clawson. So not done yet?
Ms. Smith. Not done yet. And Americans are----
Mr. Clawson. Still hope?
Ms. Smith. Yes, sir. Americans are still the largest single
group of tourists from outside of Africa who go to Zimbabwe.
Victoria Falls is still an amazing site.
Mr. Clawson. Victoria Falls. Yeah.
Ms. Smith. There are park rangers in Zimbabwe whom I have
met who are working desperately to try and preserve the
rhinoceros and elephant populations, but they are doing it
against long odds.
Mr. Clawson. Well, for me and my part, I mean, I appreciate
what you all are doing in terms of HIV control and any kind of
healthcare assistance because I think it is a wonderful people
and a wonderful place and I think they deserve it.
I think they deserve a better ruling class and a better
government so all people can participate in the fruits of what
free markets ought to do, which is reward those that work hard
and are smart about what they do as opposed to those that were
born right.
And so, until we have leadership that provides an equality
of opportunity, I am not real interested in us spending too
much time other than the humanitarian aspects as you describe.
Yield back.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Clawson.
Let me just ask a few final questions, if I could.
First, Ben Freeth of the Mike Campbell Foundation, the
executive director, makes a number of very compelling points in
his testimony, including the Look East policy, the Chinese and
Russian influence, the power of Robert Mugabe as President. And
he is currently the Chairman of the African Union, as we know,
and the Southern African Development Community, and, as he
points out, he wields considerable power and influence on the
continent.
My question is: Your assessment of Mugabe's tenure as
chairman, especially of the African Union and the Look East
policy. I mean, we know that the Chinese Government doesn't
give one whit whether or not human rights are followed because
they break human rights policies with impunity and violate
people's rights like no one else in the world. So they
certainly are enablers there, but their Russian influence as
well.
And then he also makes the point that I have known about,
but it brings it to focus again, and that is, Mengistu, you
know, who obviously sought refuge there, as a confidant and
close adviser.
And, you know, soon after the devastation of thousands of
homes by Mugabe, Greg Simpkins went and spent a week in
Zimbabwe, observing this wanton destruction of housing, and it
was reminiscent of what Mengistu did when he used food as a
weapon and used a scorched earth policy. And one always
wondered whether or not Mugabe was following his advisers'
advice on that.
And Mengistu obviously is directly responsible for this
slaughter of so many Africans, again, using food as a weapon.
And those so-called famines were largely manmade, yes,
exacerbated by nature, but manmade because he inhibited the
ability to feed people, and he even charged huge fees when
international donors provided foodstuffs before they even got
to their intended beneficiary.
Can you speak to that, Look East, Russia, China, chairman
of African Union, and then Mengistu connection.
Ms. Smith. Mr. Chairman, certainly the government is
looking east explicitly, openly. I am not sure the people of
Zimbabwe are looking east with the same enthusiasm and----
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Is the opposition?
Ms. Smith. They have been pretty critical of that. As I
said, the opposition has a number of faces now. Now I can't say
that--you know, if given the opportunity, some would and some
would not, probably. But I think that, particularly from the
opposition, there is a much stronger look West viewpoint on the
whole.
And, on the other hand, I am not sure that it is, as I said
earlier, I am not sure it is a zero-sum game that we are
playing there, that regardless of the government's choices, we
are going to hold fast to our values. And I think that a number
of people in Zimbabwe would much prefer to do business with
America, for example, than with China, and we very much hope
that they have that opportunity.
Questions of the African Union. Yes. They elected President
Mugabe as their chair. And, obviously, that is the choice of
the members themselves. On an operational level, it has not
particularly affected our ability to work with the African
Union.
And, as an example, I would cite our cooperation in
fighting Ebola in west Africa. The African Union played a
really critical role in that, in providing personnel in an
unprecedented way.
And because we work through our Ambassador to the AU and
others within the Secretariat and the more operational aspects
of the African Union, it has not inhibited our ability to do
that and we----
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. But our assessment of his tenure
in office?
Ms. Smith. Clearly, the rhetoric has changed. And there are
a number of elections coming up. And so, obviously that is very
much on people's minds.
But we have not seen a profound shift in the policies. And,
as I said, we can still find important areas to cooperate with
the AU as a whole and will continue to do so.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Is there anything that we
disagreed with him in terms of his leadership initiatives?
Ms. Smith. I think certainly we would agree with many of
the statements he has made, and he continues to blame the west
almost exclusively for, you know, any, probably, problem you
can name on the continent.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Even as chairman? Not as President
of Zimbabwe, but as chairman?
Ms. Smith. In terms of speeches, yes. But in terms of
concrete policies and the work the AU does across the
continent, we have not seen major shifts on that.
And it is a member organization. I think, you know, that
the members very much care about the direction of the
organization as a whole.
And on the issues of the----
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mengistu?
Ms. Smith. You know, that is a classic example of the sort
of scorched earth policies in the destruction of 2005, and what
you see today is a quieter pernicious oppression. You see fewer
acts of overt violence and destruction than you did.
But the phrase that you often hear is the ``harvest of
fear,'' the idea that past violence continues to cast a shadow
over people and that you are going to spend a lot of time
looking over your shoulder in Zimbabwe if you dare to speak up.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you. Thank you very much,
Dr. Smith.
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you.
I would like to now welcome our second panel, beginning
with Mr. Ben Freeth, Executive Director of the Mike Campbell
Foundation. He is from a farming area in central Zimbabwe and
was appointed the first regional executive officer for the
Commercial Farmers Union in 1996.
In 2007, Mr. Freeth and his late father-in-law, Mike
Campbell, lodged complaints against President Mugabe's
Government in the Southern African Development Community's
tribunal for attempting to unlawfully seize their farm, for
violating the SADC treaty by denying access to the courts,and
for engaging in racial discrimination and violence against
White commercial farmers and their farm workers. Mr. Freeth's
main focus is on restoring justice, the rule of law, and human
rights in Zimbabwe.
We will then hear from Ms. Imani Countess, who is the
Africa Regional Program Director for the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity for the AFL/CIO. She is
responsible for the overall programmatic and financial
management of the program, which includes activities in 15
African countries.
Prior to this position, she served as the Zimbabwe country
director for the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs with the responsibility for program
development, oversight, and implementation of democracy
strengthening programs, donor relations, and representation.
Ms. Countess has previously held positions with the
TransAfrica Forum, the American Friends Service Committee,
Shared Interests, the African Policy Information Center, and
U.S. African Development Foundation.
Mr. Freeth, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. BEN FREETH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MIKE CAMPBELL
FOUNDATION
Mr. Freeth. Thank you very much.
It is a great honor to be here. I just got in from Harare a
couple of days ago. And I thank you very much for giving me the
opportunity to put across some of the things that we are
experiencing in Zimbabwe at the moment.
I want to start off with a couple of pretty shocking
quotes: ``The only language a Black man will understand is the
language of the gun. The more you kill, the closer you get to
your objective.'' Second quote: ``Our party must continue to
strike fear into the heart of the Black man. They must
tremble.'' And the third quote: ``I am the Hitler of the
times.''
Imagine a President from the United States of America
saying such a thing. These are exact quotes from our President,
except you have to substitute the word ``Black'' for ``White.''
``Whites are not human beings,'' said our late Vice President.
So I want to talk today a little bit about this issue that
we, as White people in Zimbabwe, face because it is an issue
that is very real, is very immediate to us, and has affected,
obviously, not just us, but has affected a very large
proportion of the population of our country.
We have gone through a period with the fastest shrinking
economy in world history, in recorded history, in a peacetime
situation. We have at this stage got a situation where there is
85-percent-plus unemployment and where for the last 14 years we
have needed food aid every single year. We have got a situation
where 25 percent of the Zimbabwean population has left our
country.
So I want to look at the two tools by which Mugabe has
clung to power for all these years, 35 years now. And the two
tools that he has used very effectively are race and land. And,
like Hitler, he blames all the problems on a particular race,
the White people in this case, and then he violently takes the
land.
And we have seen how the ruling party has been rewarded
with the land, the elite, and how the 2 million farm workers
and their families--and millions of others in Zimbabwe--have
suffered directly as a result and have become very poor, very
fearful, very dependent on international food aid in order to
be able to survive.
So on the farms themselves, we are at a stage now where 95
percent of White farmers have been driven off the land in the
last 15 years. And those that are still on the land, they face
2 years in jail for committing the crime of farming and living
in their own homes in a country that is starving. And I have
got many friends right now who are going through court cases
for this ``criminal'' act of farming in our country.
As you rightly said, Chairman, my father-in-law took our
President to court on this issue of racism on the land and he
got a final and binding judgment from the SADC Tribunal, the
regional court that did cover \1/4\ billion people in southern
Africa--which said that racial discrimination is taking place
in Zimbabwe and that racial discrimination must stop.
So later, when the Zimbabwe Government ignored that
judgment and was found in contempt of that court on three
different occasions, we finally have a situation where our
President manages to get that whole court closed down.
So the \1/4\ billion people in southern Africa cannot
approach a court of last resort when their justice systems fail
them. So a lot of people are being affected by what is going on
here.
One of the things that our President did sign up to in 1991
was the United Nations' International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Unfortunately, what we need is a state which is also a
signatory--and most of the states around the world are
signatories to that international convention--to make a
complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination in the United Nations so that that committee can
then go and investigate.
And what we saw in Operation Murambatsvina, where those
700,000 homes were destroyed by the state bulldozers, was the
United Nations did come in and, within a very short period,
that whole exercise was actually stopped.
Last month, our President said to the 15 states in southern
Africa, ``I give poison not for you to swallow, but to give to
someone else.'' And he went on, ``The wrath of South Africans
needs to be more directed toward the Whites.'' So we see this
racial poison being spread through the region.
And, interestingly, I was with the European Union senior
diplomat about 3 weeks ago, and I asked him to come along to a
commercial farm where there were 300 families that were going
to be losing their livelihoods.
And I said, ``You need to come and witness it because no
one from the Embassies in Harare wants to actually come out to
witness these things that are going on time after time, year
after year, month after month, day after day, on the farms.''
This farmer is just on 40 hectares that they have got left,
but there are 300 families that derive their livelihoods from
it.
And the senior diplomat said, ``Is it a Black-owned farm or
a White-owned farm?''
And I said, ``It is a White-owned farm.''
And he said, ``Find me a Black-owned farm where this is
happening and I will come out.''
In the United States, I have been very impressed by the
moral manner in which Americans like to deal with immoral
situations, and we all admire Martin Luther King and the civil
rights movement.
I believe that it is time that the United States made a
complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination and asked for an investigation because I believe
very sincerely that silence is the sound either of tacit
approval or of cowardliness, and neither of those things are
what I believe the United States believes in.
So I am here as a witness. You have seen my paper, which
brings into account all the various things that have been
happening over recent years. But that, I believe, is something
tacit, something that the United States can actually ask for in
order to create some sort of accountability within the system.
I am passionately wanting our country to go forward. We all
want our country to go forward. But at the moment it cannot go
forward so long as the system of racism is allowed to thrive
because our President is able to do it without any censure from
the rest of the world. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Freeth.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Ms. Countess.
STATEMENT OF MS. IMANI COUNTESS, REGIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR
AFRICA, THE SOLIDARITY CENTER
Ms. Countess. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of The Solidarity
Center, thank you for the invitation to testify.
The Solidarity Center is an international NGO that promotes
and protects worker rights globally, with programs in more than
60 countries. In Africa, we work with unions, worker
associations, research organizations, and community groups in
15 sub-Saharan countries, including Zimbabwe, where we have a
more than 15-year partnership with the Zimbabwe Congress of
Trade Unions and its allied research and worker associations.
We appreciate the subcommittee's continued interest in
Zimbabwe, particularly given the deleterious governance,
economic, and humanitarian situation in the country. Zimbabwe's
economy is in deep decline, making it harder for average
Zimbabweans to work and live and leaving them less and less
confident in their future. The government consistently fails to
address the basic needs of its people.
Most workers earn salaries far below the poverty level. And
many workers, even in the formal sector, go for months without
receiving their wages. Drought in many parts of the country has
resulted in severe crop loss, and the 2015 harvest is expected
to be the worst in 5 years, exacerbating the struggle to
survive in this country where nearly three-quarters of the
population live below the poverty line.
According to recent data from ZimStat, the number of people
in informal jobs, unstable, poor-paying, and low-quality work,
has risen to 95 percent. Especially troubling is the recent
finding that more than 96 percent of Zimbabwean youth, ages 15
to 24, are in informal employment. Essentially, this means that
Zimbabwe's army of informal economy workers compromises the
main engine of economic activity in the country. Yet,
government response has been steady attempts to raise taxes on
informal workers.
While economic decay has thrust many workers into the
informal economy, others leave Zimbabwe and become economic
migrants, where they face xenophobic violence, low pay, high
levels of informal work, and poor working conditions. Labor
unions and pro-worker economists in Zimbabwe tell us that, to
prevent a full-fledged economic collapse and begin the process
of rebuilding, the Zimbabwean economy requires serious reforms.
Forward-looking U.S. policy should seek creative ways to
support government and civil society actors both in the country
and the subregion who can advocate for and help implement the
structural reforms to leverage inclusive and pro-poor growth.
Such an approach is key to the country's ability to arrest
economic decline and establish a new social contract where
stakeholders, including government, labor, and business, place
sectarian interests aside and focus on the immediate crisis.
At the same time, informal workers both in Zimbabwe and
migrants throughout the region would benefit from programs
designed to assist with their struggle for economic well-being
and dignity as well as their organizing and advocacy
activities.
It is essential that the United States ramp up its support
for rule of law and democracy programs, including human rights,
worker rights, and constitutionally based electoral reform and
for the 2018 elections, in order to ensure that members of the
country's community-based mass organizations are fully prepared
to engage as informed voters, election monitors, and civic
educators.
It is significant to note here that U.S. funding for
democracy, human rights, and governance programs in Africa
through the USAID has been declining despite extraordinary
need, down 40 percent since 2008. Entire missions in Africa
have no DRG funding. Funding for Zimbabwe is inadequate to the
challenge.
Another important component of U.S. foreign policy toward
Zimbabwe has been support for communities struck by natural
disaster, disease, and hunger. For more than a decade, the U.S.
has been a leader in humanitarian support, and that should
continue.
It is also timely to begin to explore and put in place
policies that are more directly framed not only by Zimbabwe's
special circumstances, but, also, by the strategies required by
Africa as a whole.
While Zimbabwe faces a unique set of governance challenges,
the country, like the rest of Africa, requires coherent and
comprehensive policies that will ultimately lead to inclusive
and sustainable economic development, respect for human rights,
and gender equality.
Across the continent, nations have at least rhetorical
consensus on the criticality of industrialization and the need
to create coherent national, regional, and continental
industrial policy frameworks.
The first challenge of U.S. policy is to ensure that it is
working in concert with these broader frameworks, which are
geared toward creating economic development that is inclusive,
sustainable, and a generator of decent jobs.
In a country that seems to be on the brink of economic
collapse, this recommendation may seem premature. However,
through targeted assistance and diplomacy, it may be possible
to forge a new social contract with actors willing to put aside
partisan politics.
Lastly, while the international community was deeply
disappointed in SADC's unwillingness to be guided by its own
internal policies during the 2013 elections, it remains an
important regional body and should be viewed as a central
partner of the United States as it formulates policy toward
Zimbabwe.
Continued diplomatic efforts, along with support for
regional advocates, can exert bottom-up pressures on
governments, particularly on issues pertaining to elections,
governance, and democratic practice.
Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Ms. Countess.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Countess follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And just let me ask a couple
questions in regards to labor rights in Zimbabwe.
Are they respected? Are there independent trade unions? Do
they have influence?
Ms. Countess. That is three questions.
Trade unions have influence. Labor rights are, by and
large, not respected. When you have such a small amount of
workers formally employed--and we are talking 10 percent to 15
percent of workers are employed in the formal economy--and you
have a country in deep decline, the incentive for companies,
for manufacturers, to actually respect labor law is very, very
low.
And what we have seen in those places where collective
bargaining agreements do exist, workers do have some legal
ability to negotiate and hold companies accountable. But,
unfortunately, what we have seen is that literally every week
companies are closing in the country and, as companies close,
they totally renege on their obligations to those workers,
pensions, severance, et cetera. They totally renege on those
obligations.
And also what we have seen are more and more examples of
companies that just are not paying their workers, where,
literally, you have people going to work every day in the hopes
that they might get an allowance or, you know, transportation
assistance at some period in time.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. As Mugabe looks east, as Mr.
Freeth points out in his testimony, and China increasingly
dumps goods and manufactures--do you find that that further
lowers the standards for laborers?
Ms. Countess. Absolutely. What our partners have found in
their assessments of Chinese-owned mines, factories and so
forth is very low adherence to current labor law, much less
international standards. Many Chinese mines, for example, are
not unionized. They do not allow a union presence. And the
treatment of workers and the working standards are extremely
low.
In terms of the dumping of products, there have been, I
would say, probably over the past 10 years various campaigns in
Zimbabwe, citizen-driven campaigns, opposed to the dumping of
products which are generally of very, very poor quality and
relatively expensive, given the quality. There is a high degree
of dissatisfaction with the products that are basically forced
upon the people of the country.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And, finally, does Zimbabwe get a
bad deal vis-a-vis China in terms of the precious metals and
the like that they send to Beijing versus what they get back in
terms of either barter or money?
Ms. Countess. We would have to get back to you with
specifics on that. My impression, based on the information that
we have to date, is that Zimbabwe has entered into fairly
dangerous territory in the sense that, in several of the more
recent agreements, it has essentially used the future, the
unknown wealth in the ground, in order to access loans from the
Chinese Government.
And so it is putting in place a pretty serious debtor
relationship when that country is already literally billions of
dollars in debt to international organizations as well as
various countries.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Freeth, if I could just ask
you--and I would agree with you that, no matter who practices
it, racial hatred is always deplorable. Whether it be from a
Black or a White or a White to a Black, it doesn't matter. All
racism is deplorable.
And I am wondering, do you find any empathy or sympathy
from the opposition, like MDC-T, Tsvangirai, and others who
might form a government in the future, who would see that the
seizure of farmland and farms, as you pointed out--if you could
elaborate a little bit, you know, the idea of spending 2 years
in jail for farming, what is that about? If you stay on your
own farm, you can end up going to jail?
And I remember, when the seizures were occurring, Tony
Blair was absolutely outspoken. I spoke about it as well. I
wasn't the only one. But in terms of a complaint, as
signatories to the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is there a reason why
the UK has not brought a complaint itself as signatories as
well? But, again, if you could, is the opposition at all
empathetic to what has been experienced by the White farmers?
Mr. Freeth. On the opposition side, there is obviously
sympathy. They say that, if they got back into power, they
would immediately ensure that commercial agriculture could go
forward, irrespective of whether you are White or Black, and
that the laws that in are place at the moment would be taken
away.
At the moment we have got a constitution that under section
72 says that, at a strike of a pen, your property can be taken
away and, if you then are still on that land, it becomes state
land immediately. It doesn't matter about compensation or
anything like that. If you are still on that land, you then
face 2 years in jail. So the law is very much there.
And the MDC say, yes, they would take those laws away, they
would ensure that such laws that were struck down by the SADC
Tribunal are not there any longer. You know, there is no
constitution in the world that actually allows for such
draconian measures against property rights.
As far as the United Kingdom wanting to make a complaint is
concerned, I have had discussions with various people in the
United Kingdom administration. And the feeling is that, because
they were the colonial power, it is not really for them to do
it. Mugabe would have a field day with his propaganda if they
were the ones who made the complaint.
But a country that has no colonial history, like the United
States, obviously, it would be a lot easier to be able to do
that.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you.
Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Countess, you heard--and I would ask you the same
thing, Mr. Freeth--the questions I was asking about sanctions
of individuals.
And I was just wondering what you thought of the current
U.S. policy and its impact, in general, but, also, the
sanctioning of individuals.
Ms. Countess. Based on the feedback that we received from
our partners, the general U.S. policy to Zimbabwe is
appreciated and respected. As Dr. Smith noted, it has been
characterized as humanitarian plus, so a high degree of
emphasis on ensuring that people's basic needs are met.
However, our partners are also very deeply concerned about
what might be a serious decline in terms of U.S. support for
human rights and democracy and governance. As I noted in my
testimony, there has been a significant drop in funding in
democracy programs in USAID, a 40-percent drop since 2008. When
we look at the countries in Africa that have significant
democracy and governance funding, we are only looking at three:
South Sudan, Nigeria, and Liberia.
So when you look at the human rights and democracy
challenges facing many countries in Africa, particularly
Zimbabwe, this is a serious issue. And we appreciate the
subcommittee's openness to hearing these concerns and encourage
a deeper consideration.
Ms. Bass. Why do you think that is? I mean, why is our
funding--I mean, I am surprised, actually. I didn't realize it
was those three countries. And then, on the humanitarian side,
does our funding get where it is supposed to go?
Ms. Countess. My understanding, as Dr. Smith said, is that
the funding, humanitarian aid, does go where it is supposed to.
USAID is very good at distributing basic foodstuffs. And you
can visit rural areas, as I have in Zimbabwe, and see the
cooking oil cans that say ``Gift from the U.S.''
Ms. Bass. I see.
Ms. Countess. Right? So I think that those resources do get
out. The decline in DRG support is surprising to us as well. We
would certainly like to see it increased.
It is important, we think. Not only does it send a very
strong and real message of what sort of bucks behind U.S.
values and U.S. rhetorical support for democracy----
Ms. Bass. That reduction is internal to USAID. Correct?
Ms. Countess. That is my understanding.
Ms. Bass. Right. It is not that we have cut the funding?
Ms. Countess. Correct. That is my understanding.
Ms. Bass. Or, rather, maybe it is their implementation of
how we fund it or not. But, anyway, I was trying to get some
clarity on that.
I know that in the Zimbabwean Constitution there is
supposed to be a gender commission. Does one exist?
Ms. Countess. To my knowledge, a gender commission might
exist. But I think the next question is: Does it function?
Ms. Bass. There you go.
Ms. Countess. And this is part of the problem, I think,
facing the Zimbabwe Government as a whole. Because the
political infighting, both in the ruling party as well as the
opposition, has been so all-consuming, basic government
functions simply have been ignored to the detriment of the
country, with the biggest problem, obviously, being in the
economy.
However, as I said in my testimony, what our partners say
to us is that there are individuals, there are
Parliamentarians--there is a possibility to create a new social
contract with those individuals that have responsibility for
certain portfolios, but who are willing to look beyond the
partisanship, who recognize how deeply in trouble the country
is.
And I think, if we can encourage our policymakers to move
beyond our role in any partisanship and to support and promote
dialogue, particularly with those institutions that are
actually functioning, then maybe we can begin to see at least
the framework for a different situation in the future.
Ms. Bass. Would you agree with Dr. Smith that the
opposition is so fractured that they are ineffective?
Ms. Countess. Yes.
Ms. Bass. At this point you don't see any viable
alternative?
Ms. Countess. At this point I don't see a viable
alternative today. But there are discussions going on. Morgan
Tsvangirai, for example, has been going around the country,
engaging in grassroots conversations.
We don't know what the future will hold. I know that the
MDC Renewal has also been split even further. There are
individuals that are forming new parties. There are rumors
that, within ZANU, individuals who have been forced out will
form a new political party.
There is a lot of conversation going on and maneuvering
behind the scenes, and we don't know. But at this point in time
what is very, very clear is that no one in power seems to be
working on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and certainly not
the working people.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
And, Mr. Freeth, what did you think in terms of current
U.S. policy and the sanctions?
Mr. Freeth. I think it is very important that it is
retained. You know, the European Union----
Ms. Bass. Retained.
Mr. Freeth. Retained. Yeah.
Ms. Bass. I just wondered if it's effective.
Mr. Freeth. The European Union has made the experiment of
trying to re-engage, and they have taken all targeted
restrictions off against everyone, apart from the President and
his wife.
And, meantime, we have these things like Itai Dzamara
disappearing. We have the continued takeover of properties, the
retention of draconian laws. There does not seem to be any quid
pro quo taking place.
And so, until we see that the European Union actually is
having success in negotiating a better environment for
Zimbabweans, I think it is important--just like on the school
grounds where there is a bully, you have to actually confront
that bully and say, ``Listen, we can't accept this.''
Ms. Bass. Well, just so you know, I was not asking that in
terms of whether they needed to be lifted. I just wanted to
know the impact.
But I also wanted to follow a little bit the chairman's
questions in terms of allies that you have within the
opposition. I think we have kind of established that the
opposition is not that viable of an opposition.
But what about outside of Zimbabwe in terms of other
African countries? Are there allies? And then, also, outside of
Britain, are there European or other countries that are working
with you in terms of what you are trying to do?
Mr. Freeth. Well, obviously, Botswana is a country that is
an ally in terms of the fact that it has got a very good
record.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Freeth. It is right on our border. And the President of
Botswana, Ian Khama, is going to be taking over as Chairman of
the Southern African Development Community.
Ms. Bass. Good.
Mr. Freeth. So we hope that that will create some change in
terms of the way that the countries around us respond to what
is going on in Zimbabwe.
I think the civil society itself is moving very much in the
right direction. For example, where the SADC Tribunal is
concerned, there are quite a few different countries taking
their governments to court on the basis that it was totally
unconstitutional what the leaders did in destroying this court
without any legal or democratic process. And so the law
societies are taking their governments to task. And that is
encouraging. You know, that is important.
We battle. I think there seems to be something about the
aura of our President that stops people from really wanting to
take him on in any way. At the age of 91, he is obviously an
elder statesman. On the African continent, he is currently
Chairman of the African Union, Chairman of SADC. He has this
aura about him that seems to be so persuasive in stopping
people from confronting the things that are wrong, and this is
one of our biggest problems in Africa.
Ms. Bass. One final question is: What would you like to see
as the solution? Because you made reference--I think you were
making reference to the constitution, but it didn't seem as
though you have faith, basically, with a new government, that
the constitution would actually be upheld. What do you see as
the ultimate solution?
Mr. Freeth. Well, the ultimate solution is, obviously, a
democratic government coming into being and respecting the rule
of law and property rights and ensuring that the people's God-
given abilities are able to be realized. But until that
happens, I believe that we have to use whatever measures we can
to put pressure on the current regime to ensure that that
situation can eventually materialize--and never to lose hope.
The people of Zimbabwe want something different. They want
change. They want a democratic force to come into power where
their God-given potential can be released in the country. We
believe very strongly that Zimbabwe can grow very dramatically
and very quickly when that time comes. But until that time
comes, we will continue to regress.
So, in the meantime, I believe strongly that we need to
invoke the various conventions that our President has actually
signed up to and put pressure, for example, through the
Internaitonal Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, which is the United Nations convention
which the U.S. has signed up to and Mugabe has signed up to, in
order to create some form of accountability.
This culture of impunity that our ruling elite continue to
be able to get away with all the time needs to stop eventually,
and some form of accountability is so critical to stop
criminals from carrying on committing criminal acts.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Chairman.
I just have two questions. And my 88-year-old mother would
be very disappointed in the way she raised me if I didn't ask
Ms. Countess first. But my question is for both of you.
For the people that you represent, the workers, what more
could our country do? And for yourself, for the farmers, what
could our country do to help you and help those people in need?
And my second question, follow-up, is: Unless there is a
change in the regime and the government, will any of those
measures that you are going to suggest to us--would they be
effective unless there is a change in government?
Ms. Countess. In Zimbabwe, we work with, as I mentioned,
the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. We also work with an
organization called the Zimbabwe Chamber of Informal Economy
Associations, ZCIEA. The reason I mention ZCIEA is because it
is an association of associations that work with that vast army
that I talked about, so everyone from the petty traders to
women in construction, to cross-border traders and market
vendors.
Because even in this very difficult time, people do seek to
organize themselves. They do seek to negotiate a better deal
with their communities, leaders with their municipalities, and
so forth. And so, as we provide technical assistance, help them
build their capacity to carry out their own agendas, not only
do they find success, but they also develop new confidence and
are able then to tackle bigger issues.
So in terms of the answer to your question does any of this
work really make a difference without a change in government,
it absolutely makes a difference, absolutely makes a
difference. Because the kind of small successes that our trade
union partners and our informal economy partners find are, for
example, in a marketplace, negotiating with a community leader
to ensure that that marketplace has toilets and access to
water.
In terms of our union partners, the kinds of successes that
we are talking about are workers getting their fair share,
their negotiated rights and benefits within certain
circumstances, either in terms of a termination or a full-blown
retrenchment. We are talking about unions having the ability to
carry out their role within the tripartite structures of
government.
So unlike other parts of civil society, unions are able to
sit with government, with business, in various institutions and
establish things like wages at a sectorial level or a national
level, national health policy, Social Security and so forth,
the extent to which through our assistance--and I mean us, the
United States--is the extent to which we can continue and build
upon the work that we are already doing. What we do then is to
help stem the tide, forestall a full-blown economic collapse,
and forestall the decimation of all institutions in the
country.
This is critically important. Zimbabwe is in the middle of
southern Africa. What do you think will happen if that country
implodes? What do you think will happen in South Africa,
Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, if that country implodes?
Part of the reason why I think the U.S. has been so quick,
for example, in 2008, to jump on the cholera epidemic in
Zimbabwe was because diseases spread. They do not hold to
national borders.
So you really don't want for a variety of reasons to see
that country fall apart. And for us, as trade unionists, we are
committed to maintaining our partnerships with our brothers and
sisters in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Clawson. If the gentleman will yield.
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Mr. Clawson [continuing]. Is why you have a refugee crises
in other countries----
Ms. Countess. Yes.
Mr. Clawson [continuing]. And the xenophobia and the
violence directed toward those refugees. But those same very
neighbors of those countries that you just listed, I have been
to all those countries, done business in a lot of those
countries. They select this guy as their head guy. Europe stays
on the sidelines. So, realistically, what, you know, what do we
do?
I mean, I am all for humanitarian help. But these same
countries that you said will be impacted by the implosion are
sitting it out while White people, Black people, women, men,
poor, everybody gets hurt by this guy.
So if what you said is true--and I don't doubt it--why does
everybody sit this one out when this guy needs to go?
Ms. Countess. Democracy is a funny thing.
Mr. Clawson. You are not calling any of this democracy.
Right? None of us bet on a union contract or a constitution or
any piece of paper. Every bet we ever make is on people.
Ms. Countess. SADC leaders voted on Mugabe. And that is
their process. That is their decision. It wasn't the people of
southern Africa that made that decision. There was no region-
wide vote on who would become the head of SADC. Those leaders
that represent those countries made a decision, and that is
their decision.
Part of the political reality that also has to be factored
into U.S. policy is that, while we are now talking about
Zimbabwe and its governance issues, there is a very real fear
that some years down the line we might be talking about a
governance crisis in South Africa, that we might be talking
about governance crises in other SADC nations.
And so one of the reasons why many in civil society
throughout the region have placed such a high degree of
emphasis on Zimbabwe is because you have to take a stand
somewhere. You can't just write one country off of 12 million
people.
Mr. Clawson. So why did those leaders of states of those
countries vote for this guy? What is the reason for that?
Corruption likes corruption? What is the reason?
Ms. Countess. I would say that they have similar interests.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you very much, Ms. Countess.
To remind Mr. Freeth, I was just curious about what our
country could do that we are not doing now to further the
rights of the farmers in Zimbabwe.
And would your suggestions, the measures that you think the
United States should be taking that they are not doing now, be
effective if the current government was still in place?
Mr. Freeth. I think the big thing is: How do you create
accountability in a country where you go to the police station
because someone has got a bit of paper and has decided to take
over your home and take over your livelihood and the police
say, ``No. We can't help you because this is political''? How
do you create accountability in that situation where you have
an international court judgment in your favor--and my father-
in-law was actually killed in obtaining that court judgment--or
as a result of going to court against the President and the
government just refuses to recognize that judgment?
I think the answer is we have to lay in place systems of
accountability for the future. Obviously, we recognize that,
while we have got someone who doesn't want to adhere to the
rule of law, we have got a huge problem. But what we need to do
is lay the foundations of justice and righteousness for the
future, which we all want to build on in the future so the
country can go forward.
So I believe that there are measures that we can take to
document things that are taking place, that we can invoke
international conventions, that we can ensure that whatever can
be done within the limited scope of our own justice system is
done.
Farmers at the moment and farm workers don't have any money
any longer to fight their own legal cases. So through Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights and those kinds of organizations to
help people in those positions where injustice is placing them
and they can't actually defend themselves, it is very important
that those people are able to in some way defend themselves in
their situations.
But it is. It is a very difficult situation to know how to
help people in this crisis. But we have to just look at
whatever instruments that we possibly can to create
accountability. And so to get committees to come out to
Zimbabwe, see with their own eyes what is taking place, to get
the Embassy to go out to situations out of the Harare bubble,
as we call it, to see situations, this is really critical. It
is really important.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Just one final question: What does
a seizure look like? It is not just one. It will be several.
Where are the farmers? I mean, are some in jail? Have some
emigrated elsewhere? Are they just simply impoverished? And the
workers that very often are equally displaced, if my
understanding is correct, where do they go?
As I think both of you mentioned, and I have been following
it myself, which is why I asked Dr. Smith several questions
along these lines. Is Zimbabwe heading toward another manmade
famine because of a totally reckless and irresponsible and
wrong policy toward people who own those farms? Where are they?
And if you would just speak a little bit about the court.
What kind of proceeding was it? Was it before multiple judges?
And what is the enforcement power or was--Mr. Clawson--what was
the enforcement power of the court itself? Is it more of an
admonishment or do they have a standing in countries where
judgments are meted out?
Mr. Freeth. Okay. First of all, what does a takeover look
like. Essentially what happens is someone comes along with an
offer letter signed by the minister. He says, ``I am the new
owner of this farm.''
And, basically, what then happens is he can then get very
violent, as they did in our case. Many of our workers were
severely beaten. They had fractured skulls, broken bones,
people thrown into fires, police coming out, putting workers
who had been beaten up into high-security jail, and just
creating absolute mayhem.
The police then also get involved. And there is a
prosecution process if you refuse to get off. And the trial can
go on for a very, very long time. I know farmers who have spent
more than 100 days in court at their trials. And it is very,
very painful going through a trial. Facing 2 years in a
Zimbabwe jail is no joke.
So people obviously get drained financially. A hundred days
in court is a lot of money in lawyers' fees. They get drained
emotionally. And when they eventually have to leave the farm,
they very often leave with nothing.
I mean, in our case, all our tractors were stolen, all our
crops were stolen, our generators, our pumps, our irrigation
equipment. All our wildlife was killed. We had a safari lodge.
That was burnt down. Our house was burnt down. My parents-in-
law's house was burnt down. Various workers' houses were burnt
down.
So it is a pretty dramatic thing that takes place on the
farm when these situations occur, and it creates an environment
of absolute fear in that whole area so that no one wants to in
any way oppose the government in the future.
The farm workers normally remain on the property mostly.
Many of them were migrant laborers that came down three or four
generations ago from Malawi and Mozambique and Zambia in the
heyday of Zimbabwean agriculture. But they have lost all touch
with their families back there. They have got no communal land
to be able to go back to.
So they mostly remain on the farms where they can and eke
out an existence, which is incredibly frugal. They don't have
money to buy seed. They don't have money to buy fertilizer.
They are normally allowed to plant a little bit of maize and
that sort of thing around their houses. But they cannot then
send their children to school. They cannot feed themselves
properly. And that is a huge percentage of our population. So
it is a massive problem that has unfolded over many years.
As far as the SADC Tribunal is concerned, this was a court
that was set up through the Southern African Development
Community Treaty that was eventually put into place. The treaty
was signed in 1992. But the SADC Tribunal eventually only
opened for business in--the judges were appointed in 2005, ten
judges from different southern African countries. And at any
one time, five judges would sit at a particular hearing.
So the process that took place in our situation was the
Zimbabwe Government agreed to allow whatever judgment came out
of the SADC Tribunal. They said they would adhere to that. They
argued the case. They finally in the final hearing wanted to
defer the case. And when we went for a contempt later on, they
actually walked out of the courtroom.
But they argued the full case. And the SADC Tribunal then
made their judgment, all five judges, on November 28, 2008. And
the judgment is there. It is a final and binding judgment. But,
unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government did not accept that
judgment.
We went on to register the judgment in South Africa. And we
had a cost award against the Zimbabwe Government. So we
attached a house belonging to the Zimbabwe Government in Cape
Town. And the Zimbabwe Government suddenly realized that it
wasn't just a bit of paper that they could tear up. It actually
meant something. And so they suddenly came and they paid the
lawyers' fees and stopped the auction taking place of that
Zimbabwe Government house.
But to this day they have not adhered to the judgment on
the ground and allowed the people who should be allowed to
carry on farming to do so. And so we are in a situation at the
moment where we have got the judgment, but there are no teeth
to actually adhere to it.
There were various provisions in the treaty for sanctions
to be able to put by the other Southern African Development
Community countries against Zimbabwe, but they did not choose
to follow that route and, rather, dissolved the whole court.
And that is why the various law societies in the Southern
African Development Community are taking their governments to
court and saying, ``You can't do that. You can't just, because
you don't like the court, close it down to the citizens of
southern Africa.''
So I think it is very important for the people of southern
Africa that that court is in place, and whatever can be done to
support initiatives to resurrect that court are very important.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. How long has it been defunct?
Mr. Freeth. Since 2012. And what they are saying now is
that they are going to--well, they have put together a new
protocol that will allow state-to-state conflicts to be
adjudicated upon, but no individuals are able to approach the
court. So from one year to the next, the court will simply not
sit.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. That sounds like an inferior
remedy to me, not having people to have access to such a
tribunal. Thank you.
And we will follow up on your recommendations, both of
yours. So many excellent ones. We will scope out the idea of
approaching the administration to see--because, as the
executive branch, it would be their call--to bring an action as
a member state to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
It has been my experience that there is often a reluctance
on the part of the executive branch, but it is worth pursuing.
And I thank you for that recommendation. Of course, even if
they came down and came down strongly in your favor, which I
think the facts would lead inexorably to, their enforcement
powers are very limited as well.
But it would at least create a surge, especially in a post-
Mugabe government, when, as part of reconciliation, justice is
being looked at very clearly as well. There should be justice
for all. And I thank you for so eloquently stating your case,
but the case of so many others.
I do have a question: How many farmers are there that have
been dispossessed of their farms?
Mr. Freeth. There were about 4,500 White commercial farms.
And it is difficult to say, but probably a couple of hundred
still eking out a living in some way.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And are there farmers still in
prison?
Mr. Freeth. They imprisoned some people. But, basically,
people got out. What the magistrate would normally say or
normally does is say, ``You need to get off the farm. If you
are back on the farm in any way at all, then we will put you in
jail,'' so a suspended sentence.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you.
You know, one of the joys of serving in Congress is that
there are so many diverse individuals with tremendous
backgrounds in law enforcement, humanitarian work.
It is good to have an experienced prosecutor now joining
our subcommittee, Mr. Donovan.
Thank you so much again. And I look forward to working with
you going forward.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]