    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 2, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-137

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    62-664                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
    ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
        Samoa                            DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           RON PAUL, Texas
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH,                  CONNIE MACK, Florida
        FloridaAs of 5/6/       JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
        10 deg.                          MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            TED POE, Texas
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California             GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    BARBARA LEE, California
    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    JIM COSTA, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
    RON KLEIN, Florida
                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
                    Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health

                     DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    BARBARA LEE, California              JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Steven McDonald, Consulting Program Director, Africa Program,
      Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars...............     6
    Mr. Sydney Masamvu, Political Analyst, Institute for Democracy in
      Africa (IDASA).................................................    16
    Mr. Deprose Muchena, Program Manager, Economic Justice, Open
      Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA).................    24
    Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D., Political Analyst, Center for Global
      Liberty and Prosperity, CATO Institute.........................    34

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Steven McDonald: Prepared statement..........................     9
    Mr. Sydney Masamvu: Prepared statement...........................    18
    Mr. Deprose Muchena: Prepared statement..........................    26
    Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................    36

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    52
    Hearing minutes..................................................    53

                        ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Payne
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Payne. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and
    Global Health will come to order. Our topic today is Zimbabwe:
    From Crisis to Renewal.
        Good morning. Let me welcome all of you here today in
    regard to this very important hearing entitled: ``Zimbabwe:
    From Crisis to Renewal.'' This is the second hearing that I
    have held this year on Zimbabwe, so it is testimony to the fact
    that we feel that Zimbabwe is a very, very important country
    and that we need to focus on it to see if we can move it from
    its past and current situation to an improved one. We think
    that it is important that we continue to debate over U.S.
    policy toward that country.
        At our last hearing, I gave a brief overview of Zimbabwe's
    great history, because in the midst of ongoing political and
    economic crisis that continues to plague Zimbabwe, its past
    rich history is often forgotten. As we will hear from our
    esteemed witnesses, there is still hope for the renewal that so
    many seek in Zimbabwe.
        However, serious challenges remain. That is one of the
    purposes why we are still focusing on Zimbabwe. The purpose of
    this hearing is to explore those challenges and to discuss the
    ways that U.S. policy can have a positive impact. It is very
    easy to chastise and to sanction and to isolate. It is very
    difficult to try to see how we can have a transformational
    policy to see if we can bring a country from its doldrums into
    the new millennium as we speak.
        In September 2008, the Global Political Agreement, the GPA,
    was signed between the Zimbabwe African National Union
    Patriotic Front, ZANU-PF, led by President Robert Mugabe; the
    Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, led my Prime Minister
    Morgan Tsvangirai; and the Movement for Democratic Change
    Mutambara, MDC-M; and a coalition government was formed. Since
    then, important progress has been made, yet serious challenges
    remain and the people of Zimbabwe continue to suffer. Due to
    the difficult economic and security conditions an estimated 3
    million people fled Zimbabwe for South Africa and unemployment
    rates have reached over 90 percent. Civil society groups, labor
    unions, and other economic groups continue to face harassment
    and intimidation from ZANU-PF-ruled security forces.
        We are now 2 years since the GPA was signed. In Zimbabwe,
    as we have seen in our countries, most strikingly in Sudan,
    whose own CPA, Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is in danger of
    failure, agreements do not of themselves bring peace. The
    agreement is merely the foundation upon which a peace and a
    process of change can be built. It is a framework. And we tend
    to want to hope that the framework will work. But as we have
    seen, it is difficult and many times unattainable.
        In the case of the GPA, many see it as having already
    failed because ZANU-PF still controls much of the power in the
    coalition government. However, I believe that there are
    elements within the coalition government, not just in the
    opposition, who want to see real change in Zimbabwe and with
    whom we can work to improve the lives of everyday Zimbabweans.
        The new government has faced formidable challenges to
    responding to widespread humanitarian needs, including
    addressing a serious cholera outbreak in 2008 and 2009 that
    claimed more than 4,000 lives, and in implementing the reforms
    necessary to repair a badly damaged economy.
        Despite odds that seem stacked against progress,
    improvements have been made in several sectors by the new
    government. Ministers from MDC, particularly the economic
    reforms by Finance Minister Tendai Biti, present what many
    Zimbabweans and the international community, myself included,
    believe is an opportunity to push for political reform and
    economic recovery.
        Proof of the growing sense that Zimbabwe is slowly moving
    in the right direction is the recent establishment of the
    Enterprise Zimbabwe founded by Sir Richard Branson, Pam Omidyar
    of Humanity United, and Nduna Foundation, which seeks to
    attract investments toward Zimbabwe's economic and social
    recovery.
        Although I remain concerned about the harassment of
    opposition and civil society activists by ZANU-PF elements, the
    human rights situation has improved, though modestly.
        I had the opportunity to meet with President Mugabe in the
    spring of 2009, the first meeting of a U.S. official in several
    years, and it lasted for several hours. And I shared with him
    my concern over the lack of implementation of GPA and the
    continued harassment of human rights groups like Women of
    Zimbabwe Arise--WOZA--and opposition activists. And we had a
    very thorough discussion about that where he was ready to deny
    that it was perpetrated by his government but that these were
    things that happened. And we did see a downturn in the attack
    on the women immediately following our meetings. However, we
    have seen problems arise again.
        Despite the economic turnabout begun by Minister Biti, the
    majority of Zimbabweans face enormous challenges and live on
    less than $1 a day. Other challenges that remain include the
    approval of a new constitution that reflects the will of the
    people and the security sector reform, which is extremely
    important.
        As I have previously stated, the method of redistribution
    of land from white land owners to political allies of President
    Mugabe was misguided and wrong. However, the land issue is a
    real problem in the region, and I am committed to seeing a just
    and equitable distribution of land throughout Southern Africa
    consistent with the rule of law. We can't say that the problem
    does not exist. However, a solution to the problem has to be in
    an equitable way.
        I am also concerned about the impact that the
    indigenization law, enacted earlier this year, which requires
    all firms to have majority black shareholders, will have on the
    ability to attract investment.
        These are things which I would like to continue to engage
    President Mugabe on in a constructive way. The injustices left
    behind with the legacy of colonialism must be seriously
    addressed. They do not go away. However, it may be a more
    constructive way to look at other models for redressing these
    wrongs, such as the Black Economic Empowerment Program in South
    Africa.
        Let me again state that this is a serious issue that must
    be addressed. Again, I believe Zimbabwe is at a critical
    juncture, which requires real leadership from the U.S. to
    engage other donors in the renewal of Zimbabwe's political,
    economic, and social structure.
        Currently, U.S. policy cannot take full advantage of the
    changing realities in Zimbabwe because of restrictions on
    assistance in certain key areas. I believe with greater
    flexibility the administration would be able to do just that.
        To that end, earlier this year I introduced the Zimbabwe
    Renewal Act, H.R. 5971, which would provide the following: One,
    cancellation of Zimbabwe's debt; support for full
    implementation of the GPA assistance for democratic and
    judicial reform, economic recovery, human rights, labor rights,
    press freedom, health care, education, clean water,
    agriculture, and youth employment; support for land reform;
    technical assistance to key ministries; maintain sanctions
    where needed; and call for a review and removal of certain
    sanctions if certain conditions are met to support the GPA and
    the economic, social, and democratic renewal of Zimbabwe.
        I hope that, moving forward, this bill will receive wider
    support of this committee toward working for a better chance
    for all people in Zimbabwe.
        We have an excellent panel of witnesses today. Although the
    panel is made up of all men, we invited four different women.
    Women staff wanted me to make sure that I mention this. I
    wanted to be sure that I mentioned it.
        We invited women from Humanity United, Nduna Foundation,
    Enterprise Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe Peace Project. And,
    unfortunately, none of them could make it today. The experts we
    have today, though, although they are not women, that is clear,
    I think that they will all do an excellent job.
        With that I will recognize our ranking member, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for calling this very important hearing. And welcome to our
    witnesses.
        We are all familiar with the sad reports from Zimbabwe,
    recently known as the world's fastest shrinking economy. Before
    Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dictator president, agreed to a power
    sharing with the Movement for Democratic Change in 2009, prices
    were known to double every 24 hours, and for 2008 the IMF
    reported inflation at 500 billion percent and economic growth
    at negative 14 percent. Though MDC reforms seem to have broken
    the hyperinflation, the situation is extremely difficult, with
    massive unemployment and immigration and broken systems of
    health care and education.
        It is difficult to even grasp the tragedy lived by millions
    of Zimbabweans. Until 10 or 15 years ago, they lived in one of
    the most prosperous African countries. Perhaps the most human
    measure of the suffering caused by economic failure is the
    decline in life expectancy, which fell from 56 years in 1990 to
    44 years in 2008. In the past 2 years, it has risen slightly,
    to 47.5. These numbers reflect millions of families without
    moms and dads and probably even more mothers and fathers who
    have lost their children.
        This is not the result of accidental misrule or weak
    government in chaotic conditions but of Mugabe's ruthless
    pursuit of total control. He is a declared admirer of the North
    Korean Juche system. According to the Heritage Foundation's
    Index of Economic Freedom in 2009, Zimbabwe ranked 178th, right
    behind Cuba and right in front of, last place, North Korea. His
    violent harassment of the opposition, human rights activists,
    and journalists includes torture and death.
        But Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party were not able to achieve,
    the same control over Zimbabwe as the Kim family has over North
    Korea. Zimbabwean civil society and human rights activists,
    including the men and women of the Movement for Democratic
    Change, have heroically organized themselves in opposition to
    Mugabe. For years, they have understood that the only way
    forward for Zimbabwe is to throw off Mugabe and the criminal
    elements of ZANU.
        After Mugabe's ease attempt to steal the 2008 election
    failed, we all hoped that the power sharing agreement that
    Mugabe was forced to accept with the Movement for Democratic
    Change and Morgan Tsvangirai would create a new situation. We
    hoped Mugabe and ZANU-PF security chiefs would have to loosen
    their choking grip on that country. Unfortunately, this has not
    happened, nor is there any sign that despite the admirable and
    often heroic efforts of the MDC that it will happen any time in
    the foreseeable future.
        Mugabe and his lieutenants have managed to keep control
    over the key level of power, to limit the MDC ministers real
    authority, often by ignoring them, and to frustrate the
    purposes of the agreement.
        And so now we are back before questions of how U.S. policy
    can encourage change in Zimbabwe, whether current sanctions on
    Zimbabwe should be retargeted and how humanitarian aid might be
    restructured.
        I want to note for the record that we are joined at our
    hearing by Jeff Flake, a member of this committee, obviously.
    But Jeff Flake actually lived in Zimbabwe between 1982 and 1983
    and he actually wrote his master's thesis on Robert Mugabe. So
    we have a man that has been following this for virtually all of
    his adult life. And it is great to have him here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership as well.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Congresswoman Woolsey, do you have an opening statement?
        Ms. Woolsey. A very short one, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        Zimbabwe, I believe, could have been one of the great post-
    colonial nations in Africa. Instead, President Mugabe plundered
    his own country, laid waste to a profitable economy, a strong
    education sector, and a dynamic population. The proud and
    strong people of Zimbabwe deserve so much better.
        So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today
    and learning if and how our foreign aid assistance is helping
    to elevate Zimbabwe back to its rightful place as a regional
    leader in Southern Africa. So thank you for this hearing.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Flake.
        Mr. Flake. No.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. We will now move into our witnesses'
    testimony. Let me introduce the four gentlemen before us.
        We have with us, first, we will hear from Mr. Steve
    McDonald. Mr. McDonald is the Consulting Director of the Africa
    Program and the Project on Leadership and Building State
    Capacity at the Woodrow Center for International Scholars in
    Washington, DC, where he has worked since 2002. Mr. McDonald
    helped to design, initiate, and now manages the Center's
    leadership capacity building and post-conflict resolution
    programs in Burundi, the DRC, and Liberia. Mr. McDonald has a
    master's degree in African Politics from the University of
    London School of Oriental and African Studies, and has lived on
    and worked with Africa for 40 years.
        Mr. McDonald began his career in Africa in 1970 as an
    embassy officer in the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, and
    later served in South Africa as the Desk Officer for Angola,
    Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and
    Principe. During these years, he served as support staff to the
    Anglo-American Initiative on Rhodesia that led to the Lancaster
    House and the Zimbabwean settlement and the Five Power
    negotiations on Southwest Africa/Namibia. In 1980, Mr. McDonald
    moved to the nonprofit sector, where he has headed the U.S.-
    South Africa Leadership Development Program, Aspen Institute's
    Southern Africa Policy Forum, and was one of those responsible
    for bringing Mr. De Klerk together with Mr. Mandela for their
    first face-to-face meeting under the Aspen Institute, a meeting
    I happened to have the privilege to be at in the apartheid
    following the release of Mr. Mandela while Mr. De Klerk was
    still president. He has served as Executive Vice President of
    the African American Institute. He has also done conflict
    resolution work in Northern Ireland and Brazil. Mr. McDonald
    has published, edited, and written for numerous publications.
        Next, we have Mr. Sydney Masamvu. Mr. Masamvu is a Senior
    Political Analyst at the Institute for Democracy in Africa,
    IDASA. Mr. Masamvu works on Zimbabwean issues with IDASA's
    States in Transition Observatory. IDASA's States in Transition
    Observatory provides information and analysis on political
    developments in countries experiencing a transition or crisis.
    Mr. Masamvu is a journalist by trade. In addition to his work
    for IDASA, Mr. Masamvu has researched and written on Zimbabwe
    for the past 7 years with Brussels-based International Crisis
    Group and consulted with the Elders Forum on Zimbabwe.
        Next, we have Mr. Deprose Muchena. Mr. Muchena is the
    Deputy Director and the Economic Justice Program Manager at the
    Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Prior to these
    appointments, Mr. Muchena worked with USAID in the Zimbabwe
    Mission as Democracy and Governance Adviser. Mr. Muchena is a
    highly respected human rights defender in Zimbabwe, having been
    among the founding members of the National Constitutional
    Assembly and continuing to serve on the boards of various NGOs.
        Earlier in his career, Mr. Muchena was at the Zimbabwe
    Council of Churches, focusing on economic and social rights and
    the role of the church in promoting and protecting fundamental
    freedoms and civil liberties.
        Finally, we have Dr. Marian L. Tupy. Dr. Tupy is a policy
    analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and
    Prosperity specializing in the study of the political economy
    of Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Dr. Tupy has worked on the
    Council on Foreign Relations' Commission on Angola and advised
    the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of
    State on Central Europe. Dr. Tupy received his B.A. In
    International Relations and Classics from the University of the
    Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his Ph.D. In
    International Relations from the University of St. Andrews in
    Great Britain. Dr. Tupy's articles have been published in a
    number of outlets both in the United States and overseas. He
    has appeared on various television programs in the United
    States and throughout the world.
        We welcome this panel.
        Mr. McDonald.

    STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN MCDONALD, CONSULTING PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
        AFRICA PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
                                SCHOLARS

        Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    kind introduction.
        Congressman Smith, Congressman Woolsey, Congressman Flake,
    it is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to appear
    before you. I have had the honor of working with the
    distinguished chairman, Donald Payne, before over the last 20
    years or so, as a matter of fact. He has made allusion to that.
    And it is really, really a delight to be here again and working
    with him.
        The challenge that lies before us today reminds me a little
    bit of the work we did in the 1980s on South Africa, where we
    are dealing with a regime that needed to have some sanctions
    taken against it, needed to have a strong push to change the
    way in which things were unfolding there, but at the same time
    needed to protect the people, needed to work in a positive way
    to ensure a democratic future. And I think that is the
    challenge that lies before us today.
        I want to begin my oral testimony with a caveat about
    myself. I appreciate the introduction and all. I was involved
    very intimately and very early on in 1976 to 1980 with the
    transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe as a U.S. diplomat. And I
    worked in subsequent years with that country in various other
    capacities but I haven't visited Zimbabwe in 10 years. And
    while I stay in close touch with the colleagues who do visit
    and with Zimbabwean friends both in and outside of the country,
    my reflections on the current situation are, of necessity,
    secondhand.
        Therefore, having had a good look at the scope and depth of
    the testimony that you are about to hear from my colleagues
    here at the table with me who are going to describe in detail
    the current state of play and fragility of the Global Political
    Agreement--the GPA--and the transitional inclusive government
    and the human rights abuses and the economic situation that
    besets that country, I think my best focus would be on some
    aspects of what the U.S. can most usefully do to make a
    difference in encouraging the renewal of Zimbabwe that we all
    seek.
        In my submitted testimony, written testimony, I elaborate
    on the record of abuse on ZANU-PF from 1980 to 2008. I talk
    about the early optimism that I think you referred to, Mr.
    Chairman, from the international community, and Congresswoman
    Woolsey, too, and the disappointment now that exists over the
    human rights abuses, the abrogation of democratic norms, the
    corruption and mismanagement that has occurred in constituent
    years.
        In response, of course, as we well know, and as detailed in
    your opening remarks, the international community has responded
    with an application of a number of sanctions against government
    officials, redirecting of development aid through
    nongovernmental channels, statements of strong condemnation of
    human rights abuses, encouragement of the regional--SADC and
    Africa Union--peace initiatives, support for the GPA, a new
    constitution and free and fair elections, but a strong cooling
    of our bilateral relations.
        Although the implementation of a GPA has been painfully
    slow, the very fact that it exists, that the opposition party,
    the MDC holds the prime minister's office and other significant
    ministries mostly focused on the economic and development, has
    given outside observers some room for optimism.
        With signs of recovery in the economy now, continuing
    promises of cooperation amongst the parties to the coalition
    government to push through the actions called for by the GPA
    and a new government in South Africa and dynamics within SADC
    that indicate the end of a tolerance for the Mugabe regime,
    legislation has now been offered in both the House and the
    Senate that would seek to continue to apply pressure to this
    wayward regime and to the individuals who have not committed to
    the GPA, while at the same time not exacerbating the damage to
    the fabric of the economy and the welfare of the people of
    Zimbabwe; and, more important, looking to the future,
    fashioning a way to support a viable opposition and encourage a
    return to democratic governance.
        I would caution policymakers as they look at possible
    policy options to be certain there are some sticks along with
    the carrots; that monitoring of performance on democracy and
    recovery be strict and comprehensive and that they do not allow
    the government to use any lifting of sanctions, however
    targeted and whatever caveats are applied, as a propaganda
    victory.
        I know my colleagues here will offer some concrete
    suggestions in their testimony on how U.S. policy and
    engagement might be shaped in the coming years. Legislation
    offered by this body and your colleagues in the Senate offer a
    number of possible avenues for positively impacting the
    transition.
        Let me add only one further thought on one specific aspect
    of the renewal that has to come and I believe is coming. Based
    on my own experiences in other conflict and post-conflict
    countries in Africa, as well as conversations I have had with
    Zimbabweans currently engaged in pushing for recovery there, I
    would like to underline an important and often overlooked
    element in dealing with conflicted societies. Any country
    emerging from conflict has several common imperatives. They are
    intuitive but almost always ignored. Trust has been broken and
    the antagonists to the conflict do not have a sense of
    interdependence or shared interests. Relationships are torn
    asunder. Communications are characterized by posturing and
    accusations. The key stakeholders do not listen to each other
    and discourse is confrontational. Finally, there is no
    agreement on how power is to be shared and decisions made. In
    short, there is no common vision and sense of common identity.
        There are tried and tested ways in which antagonists can be
    brought together to address these issues, rebuild the trust,
    and form collaborative relations that allow them to solve
    problems together and move forward while still taking into
    account the interests of all. Sometimes this approach is listed
    as reconciliation or conflict resolution, but it is really
    conflict transformation--changing the way in which people
    compete, how they think about and interact with each other. At
    a level where insidious and self-serving interests seem
    dominant, where the outside world sees no political will from
    the opposing parties to reach out to each other, this job, of
    course, can be very, very difficult.
        But my program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, as the
    chairman has mentioned, has been pioneering this methodology
    for over 8 years in Burundi and the DRC and Liberia with
    increasing levels of success and the formation of networks of
    committed leaders to work together for a common future. These
    are ideas that I have explored with colleagues at IDASA and
    IDAZIM, who are at the table here today, in Johannesburg, and
    Search for Common Ground here in Washington and Harare, and we
    are exploring how best we might be able to assist in the
    transition as the renewal of Zimbabwe begins to take place.
        The points of entry will differ from programs we have done
    elsewhere, and one might have to start at a local or community
    level. Civil society, along with political power brokers, must
    be involved. But it must be a part of any renewal effort, in
    tandem with or even preceding the setting in place of
    institutional frameworks and processes, such as elections.
    Without trust, without a shared vision, without a sense of
    interdependence and willingness to collaborate, the agendas of
    democratic governance, development, reconciliation, and
    recovery cannot go forward.
        I am pleased to see that bills now under consideration
    address this element by providing support for reconciliation
    efforts, strengthening local government, and encouraging a
    peace-building process. I hope this remains central to any role
    the U.S. decides to play.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to take any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Masamvu.

     STATEMENT OF MR. SYDNEY MASAMVU, POLITICAL ANALYST, INSTITUTE
                    FOR DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA (IDASA)

        Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    committee, for inviting me and my organization. We look forward
    to testifying to this committee.
        Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to talk about:
    Zimbabwe: From Crisis to Renewal. But I want to state from the
    outset that Zimbabwe faces a critical 6 months. The honeymoon
    which has been enjoyed over the past 18 months is a result of
    the formation of the inclusive government, which brought some
    semblance of stability and peace, is about to end.
        In coming to the new year, Zimbabwe will enter into an
    election mode. I believe before we even look forward to the
    renewal of Zimbabwe, we need the U.S., along with other actors,
    need actually to be on top of the situation and try to
    influence events in the next 6 months which have the capacity
    to bring Zimbabwe back to the period of March 2008.
        Two critical elements are looming large with regard to the
    situation unfolding in Zimbabwe in the next 6 months--the
    election process and the key role of the military in that
    particular election.
        I think, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the
    issue in Zimbabwe is no longer about the credibility of
    elections or the perceived outcome of the elections. The
    critical issue in Zimbabwe is about the power transfer. It is
    important right now that any intervention in Zimbabwe has to
    smoothen the key elements which undercut or which undermine the
    voice of the people, which they have done, which they have
    spoken to over the past 10 years.
        Any process or any legislation which can be pushed from
    wherever source which marginalizes and underlooks the key role
    played by the military in the Zimbabwe crisis will actually
    achieve nothing to push the transition forward and return the
    country to democracy. The military which is the one which
    actually for the past 18 months has actually been dictating the
    course of events in the inclusive government. All the issues
    which are sort of the fractionality of the inclusive government
    has largely been undermined by the key role played by the
    military, which behind the scenes is the one which is playing a
    key role of driving the leaders of power in Zimbabwe.
        So as we move forward I think the immediate objective in
    the next 6 months, before we even talk of renewal, is actually
    to influence the issue of the election process and try to
    structure a transition process which takes on board the
    concerns of the military, which by extension is taking on board
    the concerns of President Robert Mugabe.
        Over the past 8 years it has been quite clear that the
    restrictive measures which have been put in place have failed
    to a very large extent to achieve the objective which they have
    set out to do. The restrictive measures were put in place to
    encourage the return of Zimbabwe to the rule of law, to promote
    good governance, and actually to encourage those undermining
    democracy in Zimbabwe to change course. But, alas, 8 years down
    the line those measures have not achieved the set out
    objectives. And we believe going forward it is actually
    important that the restrictive measures we have put in place
    because of a flawed election and the upcoming election,
    whenever it is held, should actually set out the platform in
    which the whole issue of restrictive measures should be viewed
    within the context of an election process.
        It is our considered view that unless the U.S., working
    through the AU, SADC, and with South Africa, the U.S. should
    actually take a leading role in actually bringing together the
    key elements within the region and on the continent to actually
    smoothen the transition process in Zimbabwe and broaden the
    platform--not only look at restrictive measures, but also
    looking at the concerns, fears of the military establishment,
    which is actually key in smoothening the transition process in
    Zimbabwe. If those issues are not addressed, critically the
    issues which affect the military, I think it would be premature
    for us even to talk of a Zimbabwe renewal before we talk
    actually of influencing the key elements which are actually
    extending the way of democratization.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Masamvu follows:]

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Muchena.

      STATEMENT OF MR. DEPROSE MUCHENA, PROGRAM MANAGER, ECONOMIC
      JUSTICE, OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA (OSISA)

        Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members
    of the committee. I appear before you as a very patriotic
    Zimbabwean who is part of a post-colonial generation in
    Zimbabwe but trying very hard to have a role to play in the
    progress of our country. I want to underscore the points
    already made by Mr. Masamvu, which is to say the next 6 months
    represents a critical crossroads for Zimbabwe because what we
    have seen is the return of election talk without implementing
    fully the requirement of the Global Political Agreement, which
    would allow a credible election to take place and transfer of
    power to take place and a legitimate democratic government to
    become the product of that. That has always been the purpose of
    the GPA, to facilitate the transition of Zimbabwe from crisis
    to renewal.
        Four critical goals of the Global Political Agreement are
    overdue for delivery. The first is a new constitution approved
    through a popular vote; the second is a free and fair media
    environment; the third is a reformed electoral system with a
    clean voters' law that doesn't have ghost voters on it. The
    fourth and last is an agreed-upon package of security sector
    reforms that would facilitate noninterference of the military
    in the conduct and running of elections. These four things have
    not been delivered, and they have therefore undermined progress
    that had been hitherto achieved on the economy since the
    inauguration of the inclusive government.
        Last week, on the 25th of November, on Thursday, the
    Minister of Finance submitted a budget to Parliament for 2011.
    The total budget is $2.6 billion. And of that, 82 percent of
    that budget is going to go toward financing recurrent
    expenditure and only 18 percent is going to be for capital
    investment. That represents a precarious position on the part
    of Zimbabwe. And if you have the national debt of $6.7 billion,
    then you can see that Zimbabwe needs to pass a similar budget
    for the next 3 years to finance the debt, and it has become the
    albatross around Zimbabwe's neck.
        So limited political movement and reform is beginning to
    undermine economic progress, and the inability of the
    government to finance the debt is creating mutually enforcing
    political and economic crisis. The view of this more fully
    appears in my statement.
        I think there are about four things that we need to be
    supporting. It is time, in my view, for leadership and not
    necessarily legislation, because post-election, that is when
    you can actually provide legislation that responds and rewards
    or punish. The U.S. Government would need to renew its
    leadership role with SADC. It is the African Union Sharm el
    Sheikh resolution that resulted in the GPA's coming into place.
    We need to bring the AU back into the fold, ensure that there
    is a special envoy working with SADC, to make sure that
    progress is made. We need the U.S. Government to really
    encourage much more robust audits of what has happened to date.
    We also need the U.S. Government to freeze the legislative
    process and use its diplomatic muscle to ensure that the two
    submissions I am making are achieved.
        The final part, because of elections that are coming, in
    the absence of freedom and in the absence of funding, we need
    to establish or the establishment of a Zimbabwe election fund,
    which is managed by the U.N. That ensures that the Zimbabwe
    Election Commission is ready to carry out elections. Last week,
    the budget statement did not make available resources for
    running the election. It only says there should be an election
    fund. So it creates serious problems if you talk about election
    without supporting the resolution of those elections and
    financing.
        The last one is really a much more sharper focus on the
    role the military has played in Zimbabwe. It is important to
    re-energize the focus of SADC and the AU so that the military
    can move away from the premise of supporting regime security
    toward supporting human security and development. We have no
    role in modern democracies for the military to leave the
    barracks and begin to be involved in processes of election
    management or even governance.
        I think I am prepared to take any questions, as appears
    more fully from my statement. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Muchena follows:]

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Tupy.

     STATEMENT OF MARIAN L. TUPY, PH.D., POLITICAL ANALYST, CENTER
           FOR GLOBAL LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY, CATO INSTITUTE

        Mr. Tupy. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies
    and gentlemen, I am honored to give my testimony on Zimbabwe:
    From Crisis to Renewal. The power-sharing Global Political
    Agreement of 2008 was meant to return Zimbabwe on a path to
    democracy and economic prosperity. It was, however, a very
    flawed document that ignored the express will of the Zimbabwean
    people. It left the military and the Department of Justice in
    the hands of the ZANU-PF. Crucially, as it turned out over the
    past 2 years, it left the ZANU-PF also the control of the
    Ministry of Mines.
        The mining ministry is essentially an offshoot of the
    Zimbabwean military. Over the past 2 years, it has been
    awarding mining concessions for exploration of Zimbabwe's
    natural resources, including diamonds and gold, to a number of
    South African, Chinese, and Russian state-controlled or
    government-linked corporations. Part of the proceeds from those
    mining operations are then channeled back to the Zimbabwean
    military and the ZANU-PF. Reports indicate that laborers in
    Zimbabwean mines includes Chinese and Zimbabwean prisoners. The
    sharing of the proceeds from mining exploration with the
    military but not with the rest of the population suggests that
    Mugabe and ZANU-PF are trying to buy the loyalty of the armed
    forces to order a crackdown on the opposition in the future.
        To sum up, the GPA did not represent a power to democratic
    forces. It is therefore unsurprising that the ZANU-PF has
    essentially blocked progress on reforms that are vital if
    electoral reform, or rather democratic transition is to take
    place. Among the measures blocked by the ZANU-PF are the
    drafting and adoption of the new constitution, liberalization
    of the media, reform of the electoral system and
    depoliticization of the military and the police force. It is my
    belief that the uneasy truce between the two parties will
    unravel as soon as ZANU-PF decides that the benefits of
    eliminating the MDC outweigh the costs of terminating the
    remnants of the GPA.
        So where do we go from here? First of all, it is the
    responsibility of the Zimbabwean people to chart their own
    course. There are clear limits to what the United States
    Government and well-meaning Americans can do. Here are some of
    the measures that I believe the United States Government can
    do: The continuation of targeted sanctions against persons and
    companies responsible for perpetuation of violence and economic
    mismanagement in Zimbabwe; spearheading of international effort
    to further isolate Mugabe and ZANU-PF, which could include
    intensive pressure on governments in the region to resolve the
    issue of Zimbabwe in favor of democracy and economic growth;
    ban of the exports of blood diamonds from Zimbabwe under the
    Kimberly Process Certification Scheme.
        Lastly, continuation, and preferably, expansion of the
    Voice of America radio coverage to Zimbabwe. Most Zimbabweans
    rely on radio for news. Speaking to one of the senior
    opposition leaders in Zimbabwe, I have learned the VOA is the
    only truthful voice coming to Zimbabwe. In every village,
    people listen to the radio. Unfortunately, the VOA broadcast
    only lasts for 1 hour a day. I find it absolutely astonishing
    that 10 years after Zimbabwe embarked on its road to ruin, the
    VOA broadcasts are that short. Having grown up behind the Iron
    Curtain, I can personally attest to the power of truthful
    information in undermining tyrannical regimes.
        The role of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the
    collapse of communism was, I believe, absolutely vital. The
    U.S. Government has often expressed its willingness to step up
    its financial aid to Zimbabwe, and yet I believe that the U.S.
    Government can help the people of Zimbabwe in a much more
    effective and efficient way by enabling more Zimbabweans to
    access truthful information on a more frequent basis. Let the
    people make up their minds about the course of action they want
    to take to improve their lot.
        I believe that the following actions should be avoided:
    Provision of foreign aid to the government of Zimbabwe either
    now or in the event of the government falling into the hands of
    the MDC. Experience shows that aid is a disincentive to reform.
    Without recourse to aid, the government of Zimbabwe has already
    taken some very important steps that could generate growth in
    the economy. Among that is the legalization of possession and
    trade in foreign currencies and partial liberalization of the
    business environment. These positive reforms have been offset
    by the threat of renewed political violence, uncertainty
    surrounding property rights, and indigenization policy that was
    already discussed.
        Far from stimulating development in Africa, aid has
    retarded it. I see no indication whatsoever that foreign aid to
    Zimbabwe would unleash economic growth. Quite to the contrary,
    it would likely slow it. In the past, aid to Africa has been,
    by and large, stolen or wasted. There is no surer way to
    corrupt a few remaining honest politicians and civil servants
    in Zimbabwe than to entice them into dishonest behavior with
    large sums of foreign money.
        A number of respected commentators in the United States and
    elsewhere have called on the United States and Western
    governments to support the MDC's health and education
    departments. In addition to satisfying the understandable
    humanitarian impulse, the argument goes, Western aid could help
    the MDC accomplish concrete goals and improve the welfare of
    the Zimbabwean people, thus showing the difference between the
    self-interested ZANU-PF and the MDC.
        I believe that this point would be much more serious if
    there was a likelihood of a democratic transfer of power. That
    I do not see as very likely. Still, should the United States
    decide to increase aid to education and health departments in
    Zimbabwe, such aid should be accompanied by the highest degree
    of scrutiny. In my view, it should be ultimately overseen by
    American officials, secunded to health and education
    departments in Zimbabwe.
        In order to prosper, Zimbabwe needs to adopt the economic
    policies that enabled Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, South Korea,
    Taiwan, and many other previously poor countries to rise from
    poverty to riches in a space of one or two generations. I
    believe that with a liberalized trade and domestic business
    environment, with a reformed judiciary that puts emphasis on
    the sanctity of persons and property, Zimbabwe can prosper as
    many countries have done in the past.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tupy follows:]

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Let me begin by asking you--I think it was you, Mr.
    Muchena. You mentioned that you felt that in addition to the
    SADC, that the AU should be involved. Can you give me your
    feeling of the effectiveness of SADC under Thabo Mbeki's
    leadership as president of South Africa, now with President
    Jacob Zuma leading South Africa, and therefore SADC indirectly,
    and why your feeling that it should be expanded to the overall
    Africa Union?
        Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Chairman. The role of Thabo Mbeki
    as mediator, it is successes and failures. But one of the most
    outstanding things about Thabo Mbeki's role was the total
    contempt that he held for Zimbabweans, especially the
    opposition groups in Zimbabwe, and his overwhelming commitment
    in his role to save a decaying nationalist movement and impose
    his own will and looking at Zimbabwe through the lens of
    domestic political affairs in South Africa. So what he did most
    was to ensure that no progress would go forward that would
    essentially correspond with the will of the people. I think
    that is the hallmark of Mbeki's role.
        He also sidestepped many of the people and ensured that
    Zimbabwe was his personal project and called in the African
    Union when he wanted it to come. But you will see that it was
    the African Union, driven in part by Article 4 of the
    constitutive act of the African Union, which is responsibility
    to protect doctrine, that they moved a motion Sharm el Sheikh
    to become involved in Zimbabwe and support SADC and guarantee
    the success of the GPA process.
        Since then, President Zuma has moved to take on the
    facilitation role of reporting to AU leaders from time to time.
    We think that the energy that was displayed by President Zuma
    in the initial months are beginning to falter and he needs to
    shorten the arm. And the shortened arm can come nowhere else
    than within the African Union itself, which is meeting, as you
    know, in February next year, and putting the matter on the
    agenda of the Africa Union so that it receives the report as a
    guarantor of the Global Political Agreement would enable
    movement in Zimbabwe.
        President Mugabe is not afraid of anyone in the world
    except fear of losing African support, and I think that is
    exactly what happened when the Sharm el Sheikh resolution was
    made. He discovered that he was now standing alone, and he went
    back and started to talk to opposition groups. It is time for
    the African Union to support the initiative of the SADC process
    by appointing a special envoy themselves who is going to engage
    directly with members of the parties but also with other people
    who are influencing the GPA, such as the military. And we think
    if that is done, there is a reasonable prospect that the United
    States and other actors can now support that process, which is
    African led and Zimbabwean led.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. McDonald, you have heard mention the Zimbabweans, that
    the next 6 months is going to be very critical. As an
    Africanist and have worked in conflicts and in areas where
    elections were coming, like in Namibia we have had, and South
    Africa and so forth, what would be four or five concrete steps
    you think that the U.S. should try to get support for?
        Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to this in
    my opening remarks, what I think should be done in a pre-
    election period. There is a variety of things, obviously. And I
    note that contained within the legislation that you have
    proposed and I think some of the sister legislation on the
    other side addresses some of this.
        We, I think, tend to make mistakes as we approach elections
    and democratic processes in Africa--the ``we'' being the
    Western World--by assuming if we support institutional
    structures and give resources to that, give training toward
    that, that that will solve the problem. It is important to work
    as we can with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, to work with
    local monitoring groups with training and et cetera--vastly
    important--and also work with party structures themselves--the
    MDC and the other parties--to help in their ability to campaign
    freely and fairly and understand competition does not mean
    violence.
        But there really needs to be preparation work done with
    individuals themselves. And I think that Mr. Masamvu here, and
    I believe Mr. Muchena mentioned it as well, but put his finger
    on a very, very important aspect, and that is security sector
    reform. Security sector reform is writ large. We all understand
    or it is rumored that the army has played a very ominous role
    in the current situation in Zimbabwe, that they have been the
    power behind the throne, so to speak, and may have even
    prevented Mugabe at one point in time in 2008 of making certain
    compromises with opposition that he might have wanted to make
    because their own interests were not being served by that,
    without some work with the military in advance. And by this I
    mean addressing the kinds of fears that they have that Mr.
    Masamvu pointed out.
        It is something we never think about that well, why are
    elements within society like a military totally intractable. We
    dealt with this with a Tutsi-led army in Burundi. Why are they
    so intractable to change? It is because they are fear actual of
    change. They are fearful of what role they will play. It is not
    just the loss of privilege and the loss of position and the
    loss of access to mineral wealth and that sort of thing. It is,
    what will become of them.
        There is real, truthfully, work that needs to be done in
    the true sense of conflict resolution and transformation with
    all of these elements. It is a big thing to try to do in a
    short amount of time when elections are on the horizon and we
    find ourselves repeatedly in this position where preparations
    for elections should have started years before and we are now a
    few months before them and we are beginning to think about it.
        But I think we have need to begin to think about that
    people factor, working not just with the parties but with the
    military as well, with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission,
    obviously putting in funds for training and working with local
    observers and monitors and bringing in as we can and be helpful
    with the bringing in of credible outside monitors.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. My time is expiring. Let me just ask
    you, Mr. Masamvu, what authority do you really feel that Prime
    Minister Tsvangirai has? Has his involvement as prime minister
    made much of a change in the activities? Are Zimbabweans better
    off today than they were before the MDC coalition GPA?
        Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the greatest
    thing which happened in Zimbabwe was for the leadership of the
    opposition to agree to go into the inclusive government, taking
    cognizance of the suffering which the general population was
    experiencing at the time. I must hasten to point out, Mr.
    Chairman, that if Zimbabwe had gone for a further 2 or 3 months
    without an inclusive government in place, no matter how flawed
    the GPA was, actually, except the country from erupting into
    civil strife. So, by and large, the relative stability, peace,
    and somewhat recovery which is being experienced in Zimbabwe
    right now is credited to the entry of Prime Minister Morgan
    Tsvangirai in government. Notwithstanding that, maybe the
    stakes or the balance of power is tilted against him. So to a
    very large extent right now the feeling on the ground--I was in
    Zimbabwe just about 2 weeks ago. When you ask the average,
    general person, no one is in the mood of in favoring an
    election. People are saying, Let this peace which we have been
    experiencing for the past 18 months proceed for some time. And
    they are all saying the opposition of Prime Minister Morgan
    Tsvangirai took a responsible decision by joining an inclusive
    government to allow people to pick up the pieces and sort of
    regroup and have peace in their lives.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Finally, Dr. Tupy, as you concluded your remarks about the
    waste and corruption and greedy politicians and bureaucrats you
    mention in Africa, therefore you are opposed to foreign aid.
    What is your opinion on Afghanistan and Iran? Are you opposed
    to Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of millions, probably
    billions of dollars that we are sending over there in planes
    and cash? Is your position that you are opposed to criminal
    leaders in all countries--I know we just asked you about
    Zimbabwe--but what is your view to what the U.S. Government has
    been doing for the last 10 years in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
        Mr. Tupy. Thank you. Yes, sir. My position is consistent. I
    do not believe that the United States should provide foreign
    aid, economic development aid, to countries abroad, not simply
    because it is often stolen and wasted in the way as we see on a
    daily basis in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, but
    fundamentally because in some countries that receive large
    chunks of foreign aid--sorry, governments that receive large
    chunks of foreign aid generally tend to be much less open to
    reforms, much less eager to build up their own private sector
    than countries that do not receive foreign aid.
        Mr. Payne. Okay. Just maybe one quick question. You recall
    the Marshall Plan, and it might be from Europe. The Marshall
    Plan, actually it was not for foreign assistance. In the United
    States Marshall Plan, Europe probably would have taken another
    30 or 40 years before it recovered. There was an enormous
    amount of U.S. taxpayer money that went into the development of
    Europe, and--than assisting countries today.
        Mr. Tupy. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question.
        Mr. Payne. Make it quick so my colleagues can go. I am
    sorry. I don't know what is going on, but go ahead.
        Mr. Tupy. Four fundamental differences. One, the absolute
    amount of money involved in Marshall Plan is smaller than the
    amount of money that the United States alone, let alone the
    entire Western community, have given to Africa over the past 40
    years.
        Secondly, it was time-limited to 4 years. We have now been
    giving foreign aid to Africa and many other countries around
    the world for 40 years.
        Thirdly, in Europe, Marshall Plan was reconstructing
    economies, not developing economies. Europe was already a
    developed continent when money was provided by the United
    States to reconstruct it, not to develop it from scratch. This
    is a very important difference between reconstruction and
    development. We know how to reconstruct. We don't know how to
    develop.
        Mr. Payne. Unfortunately, my time has expired.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask all
    questions all at once just so that we can get to Mr. Flake as
    well, and any of you who would like to answer the questions,
    please do so. First of all----
        Mr. Payne. We will have about 20 minutes or so, 25 to.
        Mr. Smith. First, on the issue of human trafficking, which
    is an issue that I and so many of us deeply care about.
    Zimbabwe is a Tier 3 country. It is an egregious violator when
    it comes to the government not meeting minimum standards, and
    that is as issued just as recently as last June by the Office
    of Trafficking in Persons within the administration. And in
    reading the report, it is a scathing indictment that, for
    example, orphans without birth certificates are particularly
    vulnerable to exploitation, enforced labor and prostitution. It
    points out that young men and boys are forced by Zimbabwean
    Government security forces to work in the diamond mines. It
    points out that women and girls from towns bordering South
    Africa and Zambia are forced into prostitution in brothels that
    cater to long-distance truck drivers. And it goes on into how
    severely exploited these women are, often contracting HIV/AIDS
    and other STDs.
        And then the point is officials made no apparent efforts to
    proactively identify victims of trafficking. There have been no
    reports, according to the TIP report, of prostitutions or
    convictions for forced labor or forced prostitution, and even
    in 2009, seven Zimbabwean men who were recruited in Zimbabwe by
    a Chinese national for jobs, once they got to their
    destination, their passports were confiscated, and they were
    subjected to forced labor. And again, the TIP report reads like
    an indictment.
        Your views on what needs to be done. Yes, we want to
    obviously create better institutions of government, but here is
    a mirror that has been held up with our minimum standards in
    our law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and Zimbabwe's
    people, especially its women and children, are being exploited
    cruelly.
        Secondly, on the issue of religious freedom, on November
    17, the new religious freedom report came out and pointed out
    that the government harassed religious leaders who were
    critical of government policies, who spoke out against human
    rights abuses committed by the government, and who provided
    humanitarian assistance to citizens. It seems to me, like in
    every other government that we hope will matriculate from a
    dictatorship to a true thriving democracy, the churches, the
    faith community plays a key role in the cruelty that is being
    visited upon clergy and faith individuals who speak out. I
    would appreciate your views on that.
        And finally, you mentioned, Dr. Tupy, the Chinese prisoners
    that you reported upon, were they from Chinese gulags, brought
    in from China? Is that what you were talking about? And where
    does the wealth gleaned from the diamonds go? Does it go to
    Swiss bank accounts? Do we have any sense as to how that money
    was tracked, as the colonels and the generals rip off their own
    people who don't benefit from the diamond mines, for example,
    because it goes into their bank accounts?
        Mr. Tupy. Sure. I will start with the last question.
        The story of Zimbabwean prisoners working in the mines is
    well established. In terms of the Chinese prisoners, these are
    anecdotal stories that I heard from Zimbabweans, many of them
    former farm owners or laborers whom I contacted in the last,
    say, few months. Obviously, those are, as I said, anecdotal
    stories.All I was told, these are Chinese prisoners who are
    working there. I don't know whether these are political
    prisoners or prisoners who have been in prison----
        Mr. Smith. They are from China?
        Mr. Tupy. They are Chinese, yes. The Chinese have a long-
    established practice of importing their own labor into African
    countries. In many other circumstances, instances like the one
    in Zambia, for example, the Chinese laborers seem to be free
    individuals who do so willingly. Not so in Zimbabwe where they
    are perceived to have a forced labor or, if you will, slave
    labor.
        I do not know specifically about gold. I do know that
    diamonds are exported out of Zimbabwe legally because the
    country is allowed to do so under the Kimberley Process, of
    which the United States is a part and perhaps could wield some
    influence there. And obviously, the companies that do so are
    very tightly connected to either the Russian or the South
    African Governments. We all know about the interaction between
    the South African Government, ANC government, and the ZANU-PF.
    So it is not difficult to imagine that there is a deal whereby
    some of the proceeds find themselves flowing back into the
    country, specifically to the Zimbabwean military and the top
    echelons of the ZANU-PF.
        Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Chairman. I will just add, on the
    diamond sector, the national budget presented to Parliament
    last week indicated that the proceeds from diamonds was $41
    million U.S., with about $8 million which are still supposed to
    be remitted.
        Now, if you look at the analysis that was done on the
    diamond sector, Zimbabwe is supposed to get at least $2 billion
    annually from its diamonds, in addition to the natural
    resources sector. So, clearly, there is a shortchanging that is
    going on, because the diamonds sector is not subjected to the
    extractive industry's transparent initiatives or other
    processes that are enhancing revenue collection to final
    development imperatives in the country. So we will continue to
    be plagued and, in fact, threatened by the problems of the
    resource curse, when the richness of the country is starting to
    become a curse, unless there is a greater transparency on that
    front.
        On the trafficking person question, I think it mirrors the
    fact that Zimbabwe's development indicated that it declined
    dramatically. With an unemployment rate of 90 percent, with a
    poverty level of 95 percent, moving from 62 percent in 1995,
    clearly the options for survival are diminishing, and people
    become vulnerable to sharks and other people who are dealing in
    persons. And I think none but renewal of political institutions
    of government, effective policing and employment creation will
    stop the process that you have described. Thank you.
        Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to add on to what Mr. Muchena has commented on the
    issue of diamonds, I think the issue that most of the inventory
    itself is now held in private is actually--it is a cover. And
    that is one in a way where you actually call these sanctions-
    busting measures are actually, because most of these companies,
    you may be surprised, their identity is not being exposed for
    the simple reason that some of these companies may actually be
    coming from countries which has imposed restrictive measures
    also on Zimbabwe in terms of doing business.
        So the issue of the involvement of these--the local fair is
    sort of a coercive approach on how these measures which are in
    place are being implemented shows--is actually a sort of trip
    down to the issues of the sale of diamonds in terms of
    transparency.
        And to the extension that this has actually provided a war
    chest for the ZANU-PF in the upcoming elections that they are
    fully involved in, that most of the claims, they are actually--
    you know, most of the other side of the government, like the
    ministers, even the Finance Minister, even the Prime Minister
    himself does not have the firsthand sort of understanding of
    how operations around the diamonds are being conducted. And
    this has actually given an avenue to actually to ZANU-PF to
    actually build its war chest, ready to face the election head
    on, fully resolved and then negotiate thereafter.
        So actually you can actually see the issue of the diamonds
    has actually become like the weapon which actually is going to
    determine the political dynamics in the next 6 months. Thank
    you.
        Mr. McDonald. Mr. Smith, in terms of your questions one and
    two, I absolutely share your abhorrence of that situation that
    you have described, and I think that whatever policy
    prescriptions we explore in terms of existing legislation and
    how we move into the future here has got to take that into
    account.
        I have worked in conflicted countries throughout Africa. We
    all know that human trafficking and the denial of religious
    freedoms are often a result of failed societies; of the loss of
    the normal sanctions of society; the destruction of family; the
    undercutting of the moral authority of church, of school; of
    the destruction of local governance. It is not just criminal--
    well, it is criminal elements, but they are able to feed on
    destruction of society, and it is an awful thing. It is
    happening in other countries throughout Africa and throughout
    the world. It is something that I am very glad you have
    mentioned and I think needs to be focused on in terms of the
    recovery of the society. We talk about renewal, in quotation
    marks. There is no renewal if we don't address this question.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. What we are going to do is, I would
    like to ask Ms. Woolsey if she would ask her questions and the
    panel to think of the answer to hers, and would ask Mr. Flake
    if he would also ask his questions before they answer. The
    Members will have the right to leave when they feel it is
    appropriate. We only have 4 minutes left. However, there are
    over 370 Members who have not voted yet, which is the key
    number. So we will leave it up to them. I usually stay longer
    than most, but I used to be fast.
        Ms. Woolsey.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, all of you,
    here is my question.
        Through the lens of the people of Zimbabwe, have there been
    any improvements over the last 18 months or 10 years in
    general, and if so, who has led those improvements, or who have
    impeded those improvements, and how vulnerable are the programs
    themselves, and how vulnerable are the providers of those
    programs?
        And let us use health care, if you will, as our example,
    health care, maternal health care, HIV/AIDS, cholera. What is
    happening with those concerns, and are they being treated, and
    how best can we, meaning the United States, the U.N., the EU,
    get Zimbabwe healthy again?
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. Flake.
        Mr. Flake. I would actually follow up on some of the
    questions with regard to mining and, really, the dynamic
    between the Finance Minister, controlled by the opposition, and
    the military, who control and seemingly funded back through.
    But I mean, if we are--I think the budget was introduced last
    week, $2.7 million. It was indicated by the Finance Minister
    that that represented all domestic revenue sources, not aid
    from the outside. How true is that?
        I mean, and is mining, you mentioned it could be as high as
    $2 billion. That is an annual figure, it could be? And we are
    only capturing $40 million or so there? Is it assumed that that
    amount is being plowed back into the military? Is that kind of
    the infrastructure, and if so, how in the world can you go into
    an election season satisfying the strictures that have been
    laid out in terms of ensuring that it is free or fair when you
    have that kind of money plowed back into the security structure
    that is controlled by Mugabe or ZANU-PF?
        So, anyway, that was kind of the questions I was going to
    ask. I will be satisfied with that. After we come back, I
    guess.
        Mr. Payne. Gentlemen, you may answer any way you would
    like.
        Mr. Tupy. I will try to answer, first of all, Congressman
    Flake.
        Reports that I have seen suggested hundreds of millions of
    dollars annually are being plowed back into the military and to
    the top party members and also for the police force. Both of
    these, the military and the police, are obviously absolutely
    vital. Their behavior will be vital in terms of whether the
    election will be free or fair.
        And in answer to your second question, no, I don't believe
    that the election under these circumstances can be free and
    fair, especially if the threat of violence by the repressive
    state apparatus is going to hang over the opposition as the
    sword of Damocles.
        And to you, Congresswoman Woolsey, the improvements in
    terms of health care and welfare in general in Zimbabwe happen
    because of simply the ability and the willingness of the
    Zimbabwean people to basically take care of themselves. They
    were prohibited from doing so by hyperinflation, which ran to
    trillions of percent, and also by political violence. Once
    hyperinflation was subdued and they were able to deal in a
    normal currency, such as the U.S. dollar and the South African
    rand, and once political violence had subsided, people returned
    to what they do best, which is to improve their lot. And so we
    are seeing gradual increases in welfare in Zimbabwe, and I
    would expect those to continue until the political situation
    doesn't become unbearable again.
        Mr. Muchena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would start by answering Congresswoman Woolsey's
    question. I think that there has been a lot of improvement. I
    think that is what we started by saying that there has been
    dramatic improvement in the 2 years since the Global Political
    Agreement was consummated, and specifically on the sectors that
    you talked about, health, education.
        Keep in mind that Zimbabwe has a proud investment record in
    education and health on the continent, with leading industries,
    up until 2000, and the continent started to dramatically
    collapse. But in the last year alone, all schools that had been
    closed in 2007 and 2008 were opened, which was good. We also
    had health sectors opening up, and we also had cholera which
    had been totally eliminated, which had become a scourge.
        So there has been improvement. This improvement is now
    being affected by the threat to the return of the old order. I
    think that is the point we are making.
        In terms of the economy, the mining sector, the total
    contribution of the mining sector of the budget was 44 percent,
    and that not only includes diamonds, it also includes gold,
    platinum, and so on. And as a result of the restoration of
    stability, we started to see profits in the mining sector. So
    what needs to actually happen is a much more predictable
    economic management system and economic government system to
    fully exploit the opportunity of a buoyant mining sector in
    Zimbabwe which can actually finance the budget.
        This has been why Minister Biti could not rely on foreign
    dollars coming in the budget because the vote of credit was
    expected to be at $800 million. They have only mobilized $200
    million in the last year. So he decided, no, let us go it
    alone. This is why I am saying 60 percent of the resolution of
    the Zimbabwean crisis can be done domestically, through
    reforming laws, political reforms and so on, and the
    international can accompany that progress. And I think part of
    the record is being indicated in the Minister of Finance's
    conduct, including ensuring that the government and central
    bank is quarantined to a more central governance role than what
    they have been doing in the last couple of years. Thank you.
        Mr. Masamvu. Thank you, Chairman.
        Just to keep on quickly to what Mr. Muchena has said, I
    think the general attitude of the people of Zimbabwe is really
    seeing the benefits of the inclusive government in the past 18
    months. To an extent, this is the feeling which is driving the
    general dislike of having, let's call it a premature call for
    an election. The people wanted this inclusive government to be
    sustained for a period of maybe 2 to for the next 3 years or so
    to allow the green shoots which are happening in the
    noneconomic front to actually sort of be sustained.
        We probably will see a vast improvement in education, you
    know, in terms of schools, textbooks, and all in the collective
    of the human talent plans extended especially at the onset of
    the inclusive government.
        I believe this is what--actually, when people look at the
    next election coming, the fears are for a relapse to the pre-
    March 2008 where the shops were not in food. Right now there is
    a growing fear that if this election talk reaches a crescendo
    after the new year, we are actually going to see a situation
    where there will be a situation of small capital flight which
    was in going out, shortages of food because of political
    instability.
        No wonder why is what we have been restating on this panel,
    that what needs to be done in the next 6 months in terms of
    doing a course correction in terms of engaging with South
    Africa and SADC is to go to villages and to answer is Zimbabwe
    ready for an election? And I think this should be looked into
    what context of the reforms and the need to have the country to
    heal before any other election can be held.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. A quick response.
        Mr. McDonald. Yeah, to Congresswoman Woolsey's question.
    First of all, when you asked it, you said, has there been any
    improvements in the last 10 years and last 18 months? Very,
    very important to keep those time frames in mind because of the
    last 10 years, absolutely not; in the last 18 months, yes. It
    is not coincidental, and it has been mentioned that that is
    coinciding with the September 2008 GPA and the formulation of
    the coalition government.
        You asked who and how any improvements that have taken
    place have come about. In these last 3 years or so
    approximately years since GPA, there has been an increased flow
    of foreign aid, around $800 million a year, and that has been
    very targeted, not through government; very targeted in health,
    education, water, sanitation. So it really has been of great
    assistance, I believe, and created the situation of
    improvement.
        The Ministry of Finance, already been discussed or
    reiterated, attacking the inflation problem, attacking the--
    decoupling the currency and going back to U.S. dollar basis has
    really helped, but what Dr. Tupy said is very important. The
    people are resilient. I think what you are seeing here is also
    reflected in their hope for the future; not just their
    resilience and relying on themselves and getting by and getting
    through, but because they see hope for the future, there is a
    renewed spirit. Obviously that hope can be dashed very easily
    if the coalition government doesn't work, if the elections
    don't come about, Constitution isn't put in place. But I think
    we are seeing that rising aspiration now as people are hopeful
    that things may come right.
        Mr. Payne. Let me certainly thank the panel. Unfortunately
    we are going to have to leave in a minute, but I also agree
    that I think Zimbabwe has a great future if we can get over
    this hurdle of the next 6 months are important, if we can move
    to a new Zimbabwe.
        Let me ask for unanimous consent that Members have 5
    legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        Once again, let me thank the witnesses for being here. It
    is my hope that H.R. 5971 will be seriously considered, and
    that the U.S. policy will take full advantage of the window of
    opportunity in Zimbabwe.
        Thank you all again for your testimony, and the meeting
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

                                   Minutes deg.