[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2211-E2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ZIMBABWE DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 4, 2001

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, at the international Relations Committee 
meeting of November 28, 2001, which considered the Zimbabwe Democracy 
and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, I asked a question of my colleagues 
who were vociferously supporting this misdirected piece of legislation: 
``Can anyone explain how the people in question who now have the land 
in question in Zimbabwe got title to the land?''
  My query was met with a deafening silence. Those who knew did not 
want to admit the truth and those who didn't know should have known--
that the land was stolen from its indigenous peoples through the 
British South Africa Company and any ``titles'' to it were illegal and 
invalid. Whatever the reason for their silence, the answer to this 
question is the unspoken but real reason for why the United States 
Congress is now concentrating its time and resources on squeezing an 
economically-devastated African state under the hypocritical guise of 
providing a ``transition to democracy.''
  Zimbabwe is Africa's second-longest stable democracy. It is multi-
party. It had elections last year where the opposition, Movement for 
Democratic Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an 
opposition press which vigorously criticizes the government and 
governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions 
contrary to the wishes of the governing party. Zimbabwe is not without 
troubles, but neither is the United States. I have not heard anyone 
proposing a United States Democracy Act following last year's 
Presidential electoral debacle. And if a foreign country were to pass 
legislation calling for a United States Democracy Act which provided 
funding for United States opposition parties under the fig leaf of 
``Voter Education,'' this body and this country would not stand for it.
  There are many de jure and de facto one-party states in the world 
which are the recipients of support of the United States government. 
They are not the subject of Congressional legislative sanctions. To any 
honest observer, Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to 
right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to return 
its land to its people. The Zimbabwean government has said that a 
situation where 2 percent of the population owns 85 percent of the best 
land is untenable. Those who presently own more than one farm will no 
longer be able to do so.

[[Page E2212]]

  When we get right down to it, this legislation is nothing more than a 
formal declaration of United States complicity in a program to maintain 
white-skin privilege. We can call it an ``incentives'' bill, but that 
does not change its essential ``sanctions'' nature. It is racist and 
against the interests of the masses of Zimbabweans. In the long-run the 
Zimbabwe Democracy Act will work against the United States having a 
mutually beneficial relationship with Africa.

                          ____________________