[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE TROUBLING PATH AHEAD FOR U.S.-ZIMBABWE RELATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 17, 2013

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, despite more than a decade of 
targeted sanctions, Zimbabwe has continued to be a major U.S. trading 
partner through the Generalized System of Preferences, even though it 
has been excluded from the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 
Chromium, platinum and diamonds have enriched Zimbabwe's leaders, but 
not its people.
   Zimbabwe had been one of Africa's leading industrial powers and 
agricultural producers until its government diminished the ability of 
the country to sustain its industrial or agricultural production. 
Illegal and disruptive land seizures resulted in political cronies 
gaining control of productive agricultural land rather than the black 
farm workers as promised. Agricultural production suffered, dragging 
down manufacturers of agricultural equipment--the base of the country's 
industry. The reduction in tax revenues led to a desperate search for 
foreign funding to stabilize an economy whose inflation rate reached 
globally historic levels.
   Nevertheless, Zimbabwe is a major player in southern Africa, even 
more so now that newly reelected President Robert Mugabe has been 
chosen as Vice Chairman of the Southern African Development Community 
(SADC) and the organization's anticipated Chairman next year. Facing 
international appeals for an end to sanctions on Zimbabwe and threats 
from the Mugabe government of economic retaliation, the U.S. must 
devise a policy that safeguards American interests while maintaining 
our support for democracy, human rights, good governance and economic 
development. Today's hearing will examine how the process of policy 
formation is going now and discuss what that policy should look like at 
the conclusion of that process.
   The United States has experienced a troubled relationship with 
Zimbabwe since this southern African nation achieved majority rule in 
1980. Robert Mugabe, the liberation leader who has led his country 
since 1980, has always resented that our government did not support his 
war against the previous white minority government. Despite our efforts 
to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with Mugabe's 
government over the past couple of decades, his regime has spurned our 
hand of friendship and flouted international law and convention.
   Using colonial-era laws as models, Mugabe's government has 
eliminated the possibility that the political opposition can credibly 
challenge his rule. It has limited the ability of the media to 
effectively report on the news of the day. It has restricted civil 
society advocates from documenting and verifying the many human rights 
violations that have taken place in Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
   When Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery 
Act of 2001, or ZDERA, it set out a range of aid restrictions requiring 
U.S. representatives on the boards of international financial 
institutions to vote against loans or debt cancellations benefitting 
the Zimbabwean government, pending fulfillment of a range of conditions 
based on repeal of the limitations on the freedom of Zimbabweans.
   Recent annual appropriations laws also have barred U.S. support for 
international loans or grants to the government, except to meet basic 
human needs or to promote democracy. Generally, bilateral aid is 
prohibited, except that pertaining to health, humanitarian needs, 
education, or macroeconomic growth. Such prohibitions are maintained 
unless the Secretary of State certifies that ``the rule of law has been 
restored . . . including respect for ownership and title to property, 
freedom of speech and association.''
   However, Mugabe's August 22, 2013 inauguration marked the end of a 
five-year period of often uneasy political power sharing with the 
opposition and partially fulfilled reforms pursued by the Government of 
National Unity under the Global Political Agreement. The end of the 
unity government means that unless a deal is struck with the ruling 
ZANU-PF party, its former partner in government, the opposition MDC-T 
party will likely no longer play a role in executive branch policy-
making.
   Past patterns of ZANU-PF governance, along with recent actions by 
ruling party officials and the MDC-T's new marginalization, indicate 
that Zimbabwe may be entering a period characterized by a pattern of 
unilateral exercise of state power potentially accompanied by 
manipulation of the rule of law in its favor; a lack of national 
political consensus and the absence of vehicles for alternatives to 
ZANU-PF policies; continued restrictions on the activities of civil 
society organizations and opposition activists, including legal and 
extralegal harassment and violence both by the police and by ZANU-PF 
supporters, and weak economic growth due to ZANU-PF's pursuit of a 
nationalist economic agenda focusing on state interventions in the 
economy.
   The Mugabe government has long blamed the United States and Great 
Britain for hampering its economic growth due to sanctions, but aside 
from direct aid limitations, most sanctions are targeted toward Mugabe 
and his government's leadership. SADC is now calling for a removal of 
sanctions against Zimbabwe and is being joined by a growing 
international chorus that includes a few voices from within the 
Congress of the United States. Meanwhile, President Mugabe has 
threatened to punish Western firms operating in Zimbabwe unless 
sanctions are lifted.
   But questions remain about the willingness of the Mugabe government 
to take the steps necessary to rescind U.S. sanctions. If Zimbabwe 
takes a defiant stand, where does that leave U.S.-Zimbabwe relations? 
The Administration has tried limited relaxation of sanctions only to be 
met with continued refusal to accept reform. Where does this leave U.S. 
policy?
   However problematic our relationship with Zimbabwe has been, we need 
to devise a policy that fulfills our national interests, protects the 
human rights of Zimbabweans and enables this former industrial power to 
resume its rightful role in Africa's economy and the global economy as 
a whole.

                          ____________________