U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–616 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

ZIMBABWE: DEMOCRACY ON THE LINE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

Serial No. 106–138

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

TOM CAMPBELL, California

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

TOM SHEEHY, Subcommittee Staff Director

MALIK M. CHAKA, Professional Staff Member

CHARISSE GLASSMAN, Democratic Professional Staff Member

CHARMAINE V. HOUSEMAN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable Nancy Powell, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, for African

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 5

Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, President, Movement for Democratic Change .............. 11

The Honorable Chester Crocker, Professor, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University ............................................................................. 19

Mr. Pat Merloe, Director of Programs on Elections and Political Processes,

National Democratic Institute ............................................................................ 23

Mr. Lloyd O. Pierson, Regional Director for Africa, International Republican

Institute ................................................................................................................ 25

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from California and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa ................................................. 40

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from California ..... 42

Ms. Nancy J. Powell ................................................................................................ 45

Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai ........................................................................................... 49

The Honorable Chester Crocker ............................................................................. 57

Mr. Pat Merloe ......................................................................................................... 63

Mr. Lloyd O. Pierson ............................................................................................... 85

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter dated June 8, 2000, from Representative Ros-Lehtinen to Zimbabwe

President Robert Mugabe .................................................................................... 88

Letter dated June 8, 2000, from Representative Ros-Lehtinen to Honorable

Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary-U.S. Department of State ........................... 90

Letter dated June 12, 2000, from Representative Ros-Lehtinen to Honorable

Thomas McDonald, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Zimbabwe ............... 92

Responses to questions for the record from the Department of State ................. 93

(1)

ZIMBABWE: DEMOCRACY ON THE LINE

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

WASHINGTON, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:16 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Edward R. Royce (chairman

of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ROYCE. The hearing of the Africa Subcommittee will come to

order.

Today the Subcommittee will look at the political chaos in

Zimbabwe, where legislative elections are scheduled for June 24

and 25. Our witnesses today will tell how President Robert Mugabe

is sparing no means to maintain power for his ZANU People’s

Front.

Of late, we have seen the spectacle of ZANU supporters attacking schools, having taken their cue from the justice minister, who

accused the teachers of Zimbabwe of polluting the minds of young

people. The Zimbabwe Teachers Association says at least 200

schools have been disrupted by intimidation and attack. Teachers

have been dragged from their classrooms. Teachers have been

stripped naked in front of their students and forced to chant proZANU slogans. Teachers have been beaten unconscious.

This is instigated by a government which professes a concern for

education. It is no coincidence that teachers in the past served as

the poll workers in previous elections. There can be no mistake

that a message is being sent.

It has not escaped the attention of the world that the government police have resorted to colonial era special powers to restrict

political activity. Zim Rights, the country’s main human rights organization, has repeatedly denounced shortcomings in the electoral

process and abuses by state officials. It is clear that free and fair

elections are not desired by the Mugabe government.

The political intimidation has been deadly recently. At least 31

persons, mostly Black Movement for a Democratic Change supporters, have been killed. Hundreds others have been beaten,

raped, or forced to flee their homes. Ominously, so-called war veterans doing the government’s bidding have been deployed to

Matabeleland, where they wear red berets. This is a not-so-veiled

threat to renew the slaughter that the Mugabe government orchestrated there in the 1980’s, which resulted in 10,000 deaths, should

it lose this election.

2

I should point out that there are veterans of the war who are increasingly speaking out against the terror of these government-directed groups and pointing out that some in the groups are far too

young to have been involved in the liberation struggle to begin

with.

Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe economy is collapsing. The illegal land

seizures, designed to intimidate the political opposition, are accelerating the demise of an already troubled and corrupted economy.

Food shortages are sure to come. The country’s health services also

are in crisis.

The State Department recently said that ‘‘The U.S. is deeply

troubled that Zimbabwe’s previous reputation as a law-abiding

democratic society is in jeopardy. Violence and intimidation are undermining the rule of law and the very foundation of democracy in

Zimbabwe.’’

I think this isn’t quite right. Sadly, the rule of law and democracy have long been compromised in post-independence Zimbabwe.

It has been a de facto one-party state where political opponents

have been intimidated and physically abused.

The U.S. and the international community have sowed the seeds

for today’s crisis, sweeping these troubling realities under the rug

for years and indulging the Mugabe government with aid. U.S. bilateral aid alone has totaled $750 million while the Mugabe government has bought luxury properties abroad. Land reform has not

been a government priority.

The results are in. After President Mugabe has played the donors

like a fiddle for 20 years, Zimbabwe is staring into the abyss.

Today we will hear about the role that international observers

will play in Zimbabwe’s upcoming legislative elections. The Mugabe

government is putting up roadblocks to observers. The opposition

wants observers. Observers should be sent but international election observers must be prepared to make hard-nosed judgments,

calling attention to election shortcomings.

The political opposition in Zimbabwe has shown tremendous

courage in the face of terrifying and cowardly government attacks

while practicing nonviolence. International observers have a moral

obligation to honor democracy by doing their job with the highest

level of integrity.

What Zimbabwe desperately needs is a government that can promote a respect for the rule of law. Unless the political landscape

is dramatically transformed, I do not see this coming about any

time soon. That will be a tragedy for the vast number of

Zimbabweans who are committed to peace.

I will now turn to Mr. Hastings for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce appears in the appendix.]

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you very much for holding this hearing. I will not belabor it by a

substantial amount of commentary at this point in time. I really do

appreciate your holding the hearing and the witnesses that are

here, I am sure are going to edify us regarding perhaps what might

be just my central concern. That is what should the United States

policy be toward Zimbabwe and how, if at all, are we to implement

it with the idea in mind of trying to provide for sustainable democracy.

3

Mr. Chairman, our colleague Representative Barbara Lee is on

route but she has asked, with your permission and unanimous consent, that I offer her statement for the record.

Mr. ROYCE. Without objection.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee appears in the appendix.]

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, if you recall, you and I visited

Zimbabwe. I believe it was your very first visit to the African continent. Little did I know when we were there at the Organization

of African Unity’s meeting and had an opportunity to visit the

countryside, it seemed at least headed in a direction that I would

have perceived at that time as being positive.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case and what happened recently legislatively, for the larger audience assembled, is the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Chairman Gilman

and myself and you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members did pass

a resolution that I believe reflects the sense of Congress regarding

the violence in Zimbabwe and the breakdown of the rule of law in

the troubled preelection period.

I will be interested to hear from Ambassador Powell, as well as

our other witnesses, how they are going to have an election June

24 and 25 when I do not see the infrastructure that will allow for

free and fair elections being there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing

and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.

We have also been joined by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida

and would you like to make an opening statement?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Given the breakdown in the rule of law, the violations of human

rights, the crackdown against democratic reform activists, the

bombings of independent newspapers and other violence which has

plagued the preelection period in Zimbabwe, today’s discussion

takes on added importance.

My concerns regarding these challenges to democracy and free

independent institutions prompted me to cosponsor House Resolution 500, a resolution introduced by our full Committee Chairman

Ben Gilman addressing these grave issues.

However, I would like to make use of the opportunity afforded

to me by our colleague, Chairman Royce, to address the case of

Cuban doctors Noris Pena Martinez and Leonar Cordoba

Rodriguez. These two individuals were on a medical mission in

Zimbabwe when they denounced the Castro regime and sought refuge from the Zimbabwe government.

The unfortunate response of the Zimbabwe government was to

send armed soldiers to abduct these two doctors and forcibly deport

them to Cuba against their will. This plan was foiled, however, and

the two doctors have been sitting in jail ever since.

I have written to President Mugabe and have contacted the

Zimbabwe Embassy in D.C. I have written to Secretary Albright

and to Ambassador McDonald and my office has been in contact

with the State Department requesting that our officials visit the

two doctors to ascertain their health status and the conditions in

which they are being kept, as well as work to secure the release

4

of Drs. Martinez and Rodriguez to the care of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and to press ahead with UNHCR efforts to

safeguard the procedures in place for such cases so that the doctors

are free to travel to the U.S., where they have been guaranteed refugee status.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, if these communications be entered into the

record of today’s hearings. Given the ultimatum issued by the Castro regime over the weekend regarding authorization of travel for

these doctors to any other country except for the U.S., I ask that

our State Department officials stand firm in their commitment to

afford refugee status in the U.S. to these two Cuban doctors.

I would ask Assistant Secretary Powell to include in her remarks

today an update on the status of U.S. and United Nations efforts

to ensure the safety and well-being of these doctors who have suffered greatly for denouncing the oppressive Castro regime and for

embarrassing this Communist dictatorship by seeking asylum.

I ask that the Zimbabwe government live up to the ideals which

gained them their independence in 1980 and not allow Cuba’s tyrannical ruler to influence them into taking actions which run contrary to all legal and moral standards.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you enter these letters into the record.

Mr. ROYCE. Without objection, they will be entered in the record.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you.

[The letter referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.

We are now going to go to the Ranking Member of this Committee, Mr. Donald Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this

very important meeting. I will be relatively brief.

We are aware that problems still exist with the continued presence of the military of Zimbabwe in the Democratic Republic of

Congo. That situation is far from over, since recent conflicts between Uganda and Rwanda, both supporting different rebel groups,

have broken out and have continued on for some time.

We hope that the resolution of the Congo situation will also have

a positive impact on stabilization in Zimbabwe. Many problems in

Zimbabwe originate from people in that country wanting their

boys, their husbands, and their men home. This becomes a political

issue, therefore, making Mr. Mugabe move to other means of diverting attention from a situation that is real regarding the men

who are in that war.

There is certainly a serious problem with the land issue and it

has been an issue that has been there for several decades. The

manner in which the British handled Northern Rhodesia, currently

Zambia, was adequate. Funds were made available to purchase arable land predominantly owned by white settlers.

The land had undeniably been taken from the indigenous people,

but at least there was a solution by the British to produce funds

to purchase the land from the settlers. Therefore, the situation was

not volatile, as we presently find it in Zimbabwe, where 20 years

later, this issue still remains.

Lancaster House was expected to resolve these issues yet they

were not resolved. There is question concerning corruption in addition to the land situation, but that is another story.

5

My point is simply that you can take an old issue that should

have been dealt with and when a politician finds he is in trouble,

he simply attempts to exacerbate that problem in order to cover up

his own shortcomings.

So I am just here to listen to the testimony. We hope that these

elections will proceed fairly. We deplore the behavior of the government along with some of the supporters of the ruling party. This

being said, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

We will now go to our first panel. Nancy J. Powell is a career

senior Foreign Service member who was named Deputy Assistant

Secretary for African Affairs in the summer of 1999. Most recently

she served as Ambassador to Uganda. Ambassador Powell has also

had several diplomatic posts in Asia, as well as Togo and Ottawa.

She is a graduate of Northern Iowa University. Today she speaks

to us as the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Ambassador?

STATEMENT OF NANCY POWELL, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

testify this morning on Zimbabwe. As a country that struggled successfully against white minority rule, Zimbabwe was a beacon of

hope for the region and the world. The United States made a

pledge to help the new state of Zimbabwe and has invested over

$750 million since Zimbabwe’s 1980 independence to improve the

lives of all Zimbabweans.

Ethnic violence erupted in the mid-1980’s as the government brutally crushed the perceived threat from the Ndebele people in the

south. However, for most Zimbabweans, life got better after independence. Services and access to education expanded rapidly and

it appeared that the scars of Zimbabwe’s liberation war were healing. As a friend of Zimbabwe, we deeply regret that Zimbabwe’s

promising future has not yet been realized.

Zimbabwe’s commitment to democracy is now being severely tested as the ruling party faces formidable competition for the first

time since independence. As Zimbabwe moves into the final phase

of the political campaign for the June 24–25 parliamentary elections, the country’s previous reputation as a law-abiding society is

in jeopardy.

The political campaign has been brutal. Supporters of the ruling

Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, ZANU-PF, have

staged occupations of privately owned farms, and the government

of Zimbabwe has refused to implement court orders calling on the

police to evict the occupiers. Farmworkers have been forced to participate in reeducation camps and announce their loyalty to ZANUPF under threat of death. The ruling party has expanded its violent campaign beyond the farms to include the beating and rape of

teachers, city workers, election monitors, and other professionals

suspected of supporting the strongest opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change.

While violence has come from all quarters, ZANU-PF’s campaign

of intimidation and violence is especially worrisome because it apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:50 Sep 21, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66616.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
6

pears to have been conceived at the highest levels of the government of Zimbabwe. Government resources were used to transport

war veterans to commercial farms that were carefully targeted for

occupation. Respect for property rights, a critical component of any

nation’s development, has been undermined as criminals take advantage of police inaction to pillage and destroy crops and farm

property. Some senior members of the government have encouraged

the violence and destruction by ignoring court orders and taking

few steps to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of violence.

The government has, in effect, abdicated its responsibility to respect and uphold the human and political rights of all

Zimbabweans. Instead, it has approached the elections as if all political opponents were traitors who do not deserve the basic protections so critical to the success of democracy. We were appalled

when President Mugabe characterized all white farmers as ‘‘enemies of the state.’’ The actions of ZANU-PF endorsed by the government have polarized society and undermined the rule of law in

Zimbabwe.

We have approached the government of Zimbabwe at all levels

to express our deep concerns over the violence and erosion of the

rule of law. The U.S. Ambassador in Harare has met with senior

officials to underscore U.S. concerns. We have issued public statements in Washington and Harare calling on the government to respect court orders, end illegal farm invasions, and prosecute the

perpetrators of violence. We have also expressed our concerns directly to the Zimbabwe Ambassador to the United States.

The United States has suspended support for the technical support unit of the government’s Land Reform and Redistribution Program pending a return to the principles agreed upon between the

donors and the government of Zimbabwe at the 1998 donors conference on land reform. We have made diplomatic approaches to

other donor countries and to Zimbabwe’s neighbors in the Southern

African Development Community to try to bring an end to the occupations and violence, stressing that events in Zimbabwe have an effect on the entire region.

The government of Zimbabwe has repeatedly stated that it will

impose its own solution on the land reform issue and it has amended the constitution and supporting legislation to allow it to seize

804 commercial farms without payment of full compensation. It

claims that it will not pay for land that was taken from indigenous

people during the colonial period but will pay, over a period of 5

years, for improvements to the seized land. The government has

begun to issue notices to the identified farm owners stating that

they have until July 2 to appeal the terms of the property seizures

but not the seizure itself.

Zimbabwe’s approach is dangerous and will discourage investment and reforms critical to the country’s long-term future. It is

worth noting, however, that to date, the government of Zimbabwe

has not confiscated any land without payment of adequate compensation.

The government of Zimbabwe does not appear to be thinking

about the long-term impact that its actions will have on the country’s reputation in the region and the world. It has used a legitimate issue, the need for more equitable distribution of land, as a

7

political tool to occupy farms, incite racial tensions, intimidate

rural voters and brutalize real and perceived opponents of ZANUPF.

The United States has made clear to the government of

Zimbabwe that we recognize the historical inequities on land distribution and the need for meaningful land reform. We want to resume our technical assistance program that we suspended in late

March.

The 1998 agreement still offers the best prospect for a fair and

equitable land redistribution. The government’s apparent rejection

of this agreement, which it signed after lengthy consultations with

all stakeholders, suggests that it may not really seek a workable

long-term solution. Instead, it may be creating a crisis designed to

benefit ZANU-PF in the June 24–25 elections.

Zimbabweans are paying a terrible price. The economy has suffered. Agricultural production and tourism are down. Inflation is

over 70 percent, investment has decreased markedly and unemployment is up. Foreign exchange reserves are down to 1 day’s

cover and fuel and other imports commodities are in short supply.

Mr. Chairman, the headlines from Zimbabwe are not good these

days but it is important to keep in mind that there has been a

deepening of democracy, as ironic as that may seem, even as the

government is trying to manipulate the political process for its own

benefit. Democratic forces have matured in Zimbabwe. Millions of

Zimbabweans demand change and the vast majority are using

peaceful, democratic means to pursue it.

In February of this year, a majority of voters peacefully rejected

a government-sponsored constitution that would have increased

Presidential powers and allowed the government to seize farmland

without full compensation.

Zimbabwe is rich in natural resources and human capital.

Zimbabweans are among the most educated and politically active

people on the continent of Africa. A vibrant civil society has

emerged that can serve as a long-term foundation for democratic

development.

A new political party has been formed that has significant support and is comprised of all racial and ethnic groups. The United

States has a long-standing friendship with the people of Zimbabwe

and we intend to do everything we can to preserve and advance

democratic gains, protect civil society, and help Zimbabweans to

uphold the rule of law.

Mr. ROYCE. Excuse me. One moment, Ambassador.

I am just going to remind Mr. Tsvangirai, your mike is on, so I

am going to suggest that maybe you could hit your mike button

and just turn it off until we come to the second panel, if I could

make that recommendation. Thank you.

Ambassador, if you will continue, but I am going to ask you to

summarize somewhat because we have two votes and at one point

I am going to have to recess for those two votes and then we will

come back. Go ahead, Ambassador Powell.

Ms. POWELL. To this end, we believe the June 24–25 parliamentary elections are a turning point in the democratic history of

Zimbabwe. The government is facing real competition and political

apathy has ended.

8

Conditions for free and fair elections do not yet exist in

Zimbabwe. Given our concern for a credible process, even though

we know the electoral foundation is flawed, we will continue our

efforts to make the elections as free and fair as possible.

Democracy and governance are the top priorities as jointly conceived by the U.S. Embassy in Harare and USAID for USAID’s $12

million-a-year program in Zimbabwe. For these elections, we are

funding the training of over 10,000 domestic election monitors. We

are also funding training for polling officials of all political parties.

We are funding the NGO’s involved in voter education efforts to

audit the rolls and helping the semi-independent Election Supervisory Commission to cope with the administrative demands of the

elections.

The U.S. Embassy in Harare has also hosted distinguished international authorities on elections to meet with government and opposition officials and share their experience to promote credible

elections. We are funding human rights organizations that are documenting and protesting abuses in the current campaign. We are

also funding international observers from KwaZulu Natal organization, from the SADC Parliamentary Forum, as well as grants that

have been awarded to the National Democratic Institute and the

International Republican Institute, to monitor the preelection and

election process. Our officials from the embassy will also monitor

the elections.

We have told the government of Zimbabwe that the United

States wants to help with land reform but that our ability to assist

with depend in large part upon the holding of credible elections

and a return to the principles agreed upon at the 1998 donor conference.

Mr. Chairman, our long-term goal in Zimbabwe is to help build

a sustainable democracy based on respect for the rule of law and

protection of human rights. We seek also a market-oriented economy that attracts investment and addresses inequities and independent institutions accountable to its citizenry. We want to see a

robust civil society that can engage and influence the government

of Zimbabwe, stronger leadership in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and more social services to meet the needs of the poorest

Zimbabweans. Almost all U.S. Government assistance to

Zimbabwe, with the exception of funds to combat the HIV/AIDS

epidemic, is channeled through nongovernmental organizations.

We are also seeking, in addition to our domestic goals, to help

Zimbabwe to implement the Lusaka Accord to bring peace to the

Democratic Republic of Congo where Zimbabwe has deployed some

12,000 troops. With stable democratic institutions at home,

Zimbabwe can once again play role in enhancing regional stability.

We look forward to working with Congress to seek a better future

for all Zimbabweans. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Powell appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador.

We are going to stand in recess until these two votes are over.

We will be back in about 20 minutes. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. ROYCE. We will reconvene at this time.

9

Ambassador Powell, maybe I can begin by asking you some questions. The first would be what does the U.S. need to see, at a minimum, for the upcoming elections for those elections to be satisfactory in our view? Ambassador?

Ms. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, we are looking for several things.

We know already that the process has been flawed in terms of the

gerrymandering of the districts, the intimidation of some of those

who are participating in the elections. We would like to see that

cease and the elections held under peaceful conditions, under well

organized conditions.

We hope that the monitors, both domestic and international, will

be deployed and be allowed to observe the elections to ensure that

the vote is held fairly, that the rules are observed, as well, and that

the people who are counting can be observed in a transparent manner.

Mr. ROYCE. Would we be prepared to say they are unacceptable

if these conditions were not met? Is there a minimum turnout percentage that we would consider, given all the intimidation that has

gone on, as a requirement?

Ms. POWELL. We are going to be looking to our international observers, as well as our mission people, to be advising on that but

clearly there will be a minimum standard that has to be met and

we will be pointing out, based on the observation, the direct observation of the elections, where the flaws have been.

Mr. ROYCE. Would we be prepared to say that the results are unacceptable if the results do not meet these criteria that you have

enumerated?

Ms. POWELL. I think it is up to the people of Zimbabwe to declare

the election unacceptable, not the United States, but we surely can

describe it very accurately, based on the observations that we will

have in place in terms of the various flaws that have occurred already in the process, as well as those that may occur on election

day.

Mr. ROYCE. Given the flaws that have occurred in the process,

and let us for a moment assume that those flaws continue to occur,

that the intimidation and the beatings and the killings continue up

through the election, are there actions we are prepared to take if

the elections are not fair and free?

Ms. POWELL. We want to wait until the elections are over to look

at that. Clearly there are already some things that have taken

place. We have suspended the land reform support, the technical

unit that has been there. We have been counseling with the government of Zimbabwe and others on what is needed for a free and

fair election under democratic rule.

Mr. ROYCE. I would like to read you correspondence I received

from a Zimbabwean democratic activist. He writes, ‘‘Mr. Mugabe is

a tyrant and is personally responsible for massive human rights

abuses during his 20 years in power. In the 1980’s he was responsible for near genocide and this year has been responsible for the

systematic torture of thousands of Zimbabweans and the murder of

opposition party supporters. He has also made a direct threat

against an ethnic minority, namely white farmers, who are branded by him as enemies of the state.’’

10

‘‘In doing so, Mr. Mugabe is guilty of committing crimes against

humanity and now is the time for the international community to

warn Mr. Mugabe that if the violence and occupations continue, he

will face a similar indictment to the one prepared for Mr. Milosovic

lats year. In like vein, steps should be commenced to identify Mr.

Mugabe’s foreign assets and he should be warned that if the violence and occupations continue, these assets will be seized. The

time for quiet diplomacy is over and this is the only language that

Mr. Mugabe understands.’’ Now, that is the message I received.

What do you think about his crimes against humanity charges

and what about seizing the assets of Zimbabwe government officials as a matter of U.S. policy should conditions deteriorate further? Let’s say it leads to mass slaughter again, like we saw in the

1980’s. What about that strategy, given that so much money has

been moved offshore, you have these palatial estates that have

been purchased outside of the country by government officials?

What about that strategy? Is that something that the United

States might want to entertain as a strategy to ensure a fair and

free election?

Ms. POWELL. Let me say that the United States has been documenting the human rights abuses of Zimbabwe annually in our

human rights report. We have had numerous discussions with the

government officials on the areas where we have found discrepancies. The election is the most recent of those and particularly has

been the focus of a lot of attention over the past few months.

The question of dealing with war crimes—human rights violations on an international scale—is one that would have to be

looked at much more seriously in terms of specifics and the specific

responsibility of individuals in the government of Zimbabwe.

I have no information on Mugabe’s particular personal overseas

assets. That information, I am sure, could be developed through organs within the government of Zimbabwe. There does not appear

to be the large fortune that has been assumed by other people in

other countries, but that is something that could be looked at by

the government of Zimbabwe.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador Powell, and I am going to

turn to Mr. Payne, our Ranking Member, now for his questions.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.

I had the good fortune to be on a CODEL led by our colleagues

Amo Houghton and Richard Gephardt, which included nearly a

dozen Members of Congress. It was probably one of the most successful CODEL’s, by virtue of bringing in a number of new people.

The meeting we had with Mr. Mugabe seemed to be relatively

positive because, as you know, up until more recent times, maybe

a year or so, there was very little being done concerning the HIV

virus and AIDS.

The meeting was positive because he admitted that there is a

very serious problem. He admitted that there is a lot to be done,

which was a break from his past denial that a problem exists.

Could you inform us about any programs that are going on or

what the USAID may be doing there that relates to this issue?

Ms. POWELL. We have been working very hard with AID on the

HIV/AIDS program. This the one area where we do work with the

government of Zimbabwe rather than through NGO’s.

11

Our total is approximately $7 million for this year out of our $12

million program going into the HIV program. It includes creating

public awareness, testing and counseling, and a variety of interventions trying to encourage a turndown in the infection rate, which

is one of the highest in Africa, 25 percent of the population.

We are also encouraging President Mugabe to be much more

forceful in his leadership on this issue, recognizing that Presidential and executive leadership throughout Africa has been a

very, very important element in those countries where they have

been able to turn the infection rate around.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador.

If it is all right with the Ranking Member, we have our witness

on the line now from Zimbabwe and he is going to have to leave

shortly, so if he can hear his testimony, then we can go back to our

first panel.

Morgan Tsvangirai is the president of the Movement for Democratic Change, a broad-based opposition political party that is running candidates in all 120 electoral districts in Zimbabwe’s June

legislative elections. The Movement for Democratic Change spearheaded opposition to the February referendum that was defeated

and Mr. Tsvangirai began public life as a trade union leader. He

was secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions

for 10 years and we will hear him via teleconferencing from

Zimbabwe and we are trying to reconnect right now. We had him

on the line a minute ago and lost the call, so we are replacing that

call.

Good afternoon, Morgan. This is Congressman Royce. I am going

to ask you if you could summarize your testimony. We have a written copy for the record and we will now turn the floor over to you.

Go ahead, Morgan.

STATEMENT OF MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, PRESIDENT,

MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. Chairman Royce, honorable representatives of

the House of Assembly, I really do appreciate on behalf of all

Zimbabweans the opportunity to address you at this critical time

in our history.

We are set for the elections on June 24 and 25 but these elections have been characterized by a lot of violence perpetrated by

the state. Thirty members, MDC supporters have been slain, another 30,000 have been displaced and all of them just for daring

to support the position.

We are a peaceful people and we hope that you will appreciate

that our attempt to form the Movement for Democratic Change is

an attempt to provide an alternative option to the 20-year tyrannical rule of Robert Mugabe. Southern Africa not be peaceful if

Zimbabwe remains the way it is.

Despite the fact that the election process is under way, the government continues to change electoral legislation by

disenfranchising thousands of young people on the voters rolls. The

ruling party, ZANU-PF, has realized it will not win this election.

The only way they can win this election is to stop people from voting in their desperate attempt to reduce voter turn-out and to manipulate the polls.

12

Nearly all of Zimbabwe’s electronic media is government-owned

and the opposition has no access to public media. They have no

televised radio debates between the government and the opposition.

No opposition party has access to public campaign finance. Only

the ruling party has received that financing.

I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that those present in the hearing

today appreciate that in a democratic nation, those who are in

power know that they have got privileges only at the will of the

people and the government is there to serve the people. Those principles are sacrosanct to any democratic state.

I do appreciate the fact that the House of Representatives—we

appreciate the expressed solidarity that you have undertaken and

we hope that you can work to ensure that these elections are free

and fair. They are very critical elections not only for Zimbabwe but

for the whole Southern African region.

We in MDC appreciate the opportunity to address such a distinguished gathering. We hope that we, too, will 1 day know what it

is like to be free in a country of democratic principles.

Let me also emphasize the fact that the MDC is committed to a

transparent, equitable and reasonable, sound land distribution policy. The current process of farm innovation, the degeneration of the

rule of law is totally unacceptable to us. We are committed to the

restoration of the rule of law as a basis of ensuring that justice

again is restored in this country.

Land, race and ethnicity are being used by ZANU-PF as a

smokescreen for its own failure and we do hope that the international community and the House of Representatives in particular

appreciate the magnitude of the problem here in Zimbabwe and

hope that you can deliberate with the full understanding that MDC

is committed to the democratic alternative through the ballot box

and through no other means.

I am just coming from the campaign rally where we almost were

prevented from addressing the people. The people are terrified in

that situation. The people are living under terror. 3,000 war veterans have been unleased in that community and this is the state

of the election environment which we are facing in this country.

I do appreciate your listening today. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsvangirai appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. Morgan, we appreciate very much your testimony

and I want to defer to my colleagues and see if any of them at this

time have any questions for you. Again I very much appreciate

your testimony.

Amo?

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Tsvangirai, this is Amo Houghton. We met

you when we were out there with Representative Dick Gephardt on

the CODEL in December and it is good to talk to you.

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. Yes.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Can I ask you a couple of questions. First of all,

is your life in danger?

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. I think that my life alone is—everyone is unsafe

in this environment, from me downward—my supporters, myself

and everyone. Me in particular because I happen to be the leader

13

of the Movement for Democratic Change. Therefore, the question of

security of myself, they target the candidates of MDC.

I have a candidate here who has almost been threatened by the

army in this country, and is almost leaving tonight to go outside

the country because it is unsafe. It is no use to MDC to have dead

candidates because that is just the handing all of the constituents

to ZANU-PF.

So you must appreciate the fact that everyone is in danger here.

Mr. HOUGHTON. If I understand it, there are going to be thousands of observers over there. Is that going to be adequate? Will

they get a proper reading? Will they be able to help in the safety

of some of the candidates? How do you feel about the international

observers coming over?

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. The international observers are well appreciated. Unfortunately, in their numbers, they can never cover the

whole country.

Right at the moment, some of the observers are not being accredited by this country. We have so many incidents where we would

like to send these observers to see for themselves the situation in

the countryside. But anyway, I think those observers who are in

the country will go a long way to creating some sense of peace in

certain constituencies but not in all constituencies.

So I think that, in short, I would say that it is appreciated, their

number is low, but I think their work is appreciated.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I have just one final question and before I ask

it I want to thank you so much for your bravery and your courage

and your willingness to stand up for that great country.

One final question. What are you asking people from the outside

to do to help you?

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. I am asking them to assist and help the people

of Zimbabwe in ensuring that we have a free and fair election. I

mean the people of Zimbabwe, all they will need is to cast that

vote. They know what they want to vote for. Unfortunately, ZANUPF will prevent them from going to vote.

So I think as much as possible, your efforts, like these hearings,

like your statement, will help to draw the attention of this country

that the international community is watching and that is why I am

saying that in all honesty, the observers are an appreciated effort

by the international community to try to ensure that at least there

is a level playing field, even when we know that ZANU-PF is creating conditions that are not ideal for a free and fair election.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much. Good luck to you.

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. Thank you.

Mr. ROYCE. Morgan, I have one last question for you. The no-go

areas in the country where you are not allowed to campaign. I understand you have candidates in 120 districts, in all the districts,

but the government has set aside certain areas where you are not

allowed to campaign.

How extensive are those no-go areas?

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. They are extensive. They are actually provinces.

I will tell you that in one of the provinces, that is Shonaland East,

there are five constituencies there where I would say they are nogo areas. In Shonaland West I think there are two constituencies

which I would say they are no-go areas. In Shonaland Central, I

14

think there are two or three constituencies, again in the same situation. In the Midlands I think there are two constituencies that

have been badly affected.

So all in all, these are the areas where I would say certainly

something like 10 to 15—I think 10 constituencies where we cannot

campaign. Of course, they will allow us there but people would be

so terrified that they will not dare come to the meetings.

Mr. ROYCE. Again, Mr. Tsvangirai, I appreciate your testimony

and take care and we will see you in the future.

Mr. TSVANGIRAI. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. ROYCE. We will now return to our questioning of Ambassador

Powell on the first panel. So I will turn to Congressman Meeks and

Greg, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

Mr. MEEKS. I am sorry that I missed your testimony. I do not

want to ask you to repeat what you said.

I am just interested in what the SADC countries—have they

taken an official position in this issue? I know that President

Mugabe, for example, was talking about $14 million plan that was

proposed by South Africa. I do not know whether that is on hold

or not.

So I am just trying to find out where we are with the SADC na- tions, where we are with that $14 million plan and a plan to try

to purchase some of the land back so that we can then divide it

up to some of the poor in the nation.

Ms. POWELL. The SADC countries have been in consultation with

President Mugabe. There have been several meetings, including

the SADC Forum, which is our U.S. panel with the SADC countries

at which these issues were discussed.

In addition to that, as you say, there was a plan to put a $14

million fund together in hopes of being able to acquire some of the

land. That has been on hold, as we understand it, since the plans

were announced to seize 804 farms without compensation.

Mr. MEEKS. So currently there is, I guess, since the announcement of the plan to seize 800 farms, there have been no proposals

or negotiations going on of how we can try to resolve this matter

in a peaceful manner so that elections can go on in a peaceful manner?

Ms. POWELL. We continue to work with the government of

Zimbabwe, stressing the principles under which we would be able

to restart our technical assistance. I am sure the SADC members

have also adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

We have determined that until free and fair elections are held,

we would not resume our assistance on the land reform issue.

In addition to that, I should add that SADC has also put forward

an observation team for the elections. The parliamentary group will

have an observation team.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. No questions.

Mr. ROYCE. No questions from Mr. Tancredo.

Congresswoman Lee?

Ms. LEE. No questions.

Mr. ROYCE. No questions.

That completes our first panel. Ambassador, thank you very

much.

15

Mr. Hastings?

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I apologize to the

Committee and to the Ambassador. We had the defense minister

from Gabon and we are trying to shuttle back and forth.

I really want to know where our leverage is with reference to the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and places like

that.

As I read your testimony before us, your written testimony,

Madam Ambassador, you seem to place emphasis on the fact that

if there is no credible election June 24–25, whenever, that we are

not going to—or we are going to undertake to do something in this

sphere of how we go about dealing with monetary undertakings

with Zimbabwe.

I guess my concern is it seems like we wait with our leverage

and then, after the bad things happen, our leverage does not count.

I may not be making sense but where is our leverage? I am not

talking about NDI and monitors. What can we do?

Ben and I filed that resolution and I told him, his staff, when we

filed it, resolutions are just a whole bunch of words. Nobody in

Zimbabwe gives a damn about us filing a resolution. So what can

we really do, is what I want to know.

Ms. POWELL. Let me address this in a couple of ways. Last October, the IMF and World Bank suspended programs for Zimbabwe

on the basis, for the IMF, of Zimbabwe not having complied with

the requirements of the program that they had in place.

The World Bank has also decided that it will not disperse additional money, although some current programs are continuing.

They will wait until the IMF issues are sorted out and that

Zimbabwe has come back to the IMF program that it started.

As I pointed out in the testimony, the economic conditions continue to decline. Unemployment is at a very, very high rate, inflation at 70 percent, and the fuel shortages and other shortages are

beginning to have a very serious impact on people. I am told that

it is one of the major issues of the elections. People try to deal with

the economic issues confronting them.

So we would need to continue as the international community to

engage with Zimbabwe on economic issues after the elections are

over. Land reform is one of the economic issues but it is not the

only issue. There are certainly reforms that need to take place to

get back on the IMF program.

I believe that all of us in the United States are looking for those

ways in which we can maximize our influence with Zimbabwe and

encourage it to observe the rule of law to allow its civil society and

its political groups to move forward, but as positively as they can

through this election period, to include a very viable parliament as

a result of this election.

I think your words and those of others that will be testifying

today are very important that the people of Zimbabwe know that

the international community and particularly the United States

cares about their election and how it is conducted and is very concerned that it be conducted in a free and transparent manner and

I do appreciate——

Mr. HASTINGS. Ambassador, while words help, the gentleman

that was on the teleconference, I am sure that something like that,

16

a resolution, reaches him and maybe somebody in the population

but the person that counts in this kind of controlled environment

would be Mugabe and I maintain that he does not care one whit

about what we are doing. Unless we exercise some stronger measures, then nothing is going to transpire that is going to be positive

with reference to the kind of leadership that he has demonstrated

over time.

My other question and my final one, Mr. Chairman, I guess goes

to the British embargo with reference to arms I do not know, did

you discuss already the arms embargo that the Brits have and the

fact that it appears that some small arms have been sold by China

to Zimbabwe? What were we doing? What was our intercession, if

any, with reference to all of that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. POWELL. The British embargo was a unilateral action taken

by the British. We certainly can look at that measure and its effectiveness, particularly if the election does not go well.

I do not have a full report on the reference that you are making

to the arms shipment, but we will try to get more information and

share that with you.

[The response to questions appears in the appendix.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the Members asked about the two Cuban

doctors. Would it be possible for me to respond just briefly to that?

Mr. ROYCE. Certainly, and then we are going to go to Mr. Payne

for his questioning and then to Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Go ahead, Ambassador.

Ms. POWELL. UNHCR has had access to the two doctors. They

have confirmed that their health and other conditions are fine.

They are being held in protective custody in conditions that meet

international standards.

We are working with UNHCR, certainly with the government of

Zimbabwe, to ensure that the government meets its obligations

under the handling of refugees and we will be continuing those efforts to get the release of these two doctors from Zimbabwe.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you very much, Ambassador.

We will now go to Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

I have met with some of the opposition leaders and they seem

to be fairly well organized, I see this in the work of IRI and NDI.

How would you assess the opposition in their organization and

their ability to get their program established?

Ms. POWELL. As was stated, the MDC is the largest group and

it is a relatively new group. It has been built by many of the followers of the labor union movement and they have had a very good

grassroots organization as a result of that and been able to reach

out through the country. They have aspired to have a very nonviolent campaign, to look at issues, particularly of dealing with the

economy, and they have been, with the exception of the no-go constituencies that Mr. Tsvangirai talked about, they have been able

to have a very vigorous campaign, although certainly many of their

members have been intimidated, they have had their cards taken

from them, they have been forced to recant their membership, and

there has been a degree of intimidation that has been unprecedented.

17

But they have also provided perhaps the first real opposition to

the ZANU-PF in 20 years since independence.

Mr. PAYNE. To your knowledge, with regard to the HIV virus and

AIDS, is it more prominent in cities or in the rural communities?

Ms. POWELL. Mr. Payne, I am sorry; I do not know the answer.

I will have to find out. In general, it has been an urban phenomenon but I am not sure in Zimbabwe.

[Further response appears in the appendix.]

Mr. PAYNE. Since we are running behind, I will just hold my

other questions.

I would like to say that when Zimbabwe became independent,

the big emphasis was on education and health, and Mr. Mugabe

and his government did an outstanding job in education, probably

the best job done in any African country.

Unfortunately, the economy never caught up to the educated individuals and therefore created unrest by virtue of the fact that

you do an outstanding job in educating your population and then

there is no place for them to go and seek employment. So that was,

I guess, one of the beginnings of the downfall of the system there

in Zimbabwe.

But I do feel that, and I will ask some of the other speakers, I

do feel that we did not—that the whole Lancaster question, although we get different versions of what was supposed to happen,

but I think that is certainly part of the problem that we find today

because of what was not done at the time when those agreements

were made.

Just finally, I think that—I wish my colleague from Cuba was

still here because I have often commended the Cuban government

for the outstanding job that they have done around the world by

the fact of having an excellent educational system there and providing a number of doctors throughout the world, in particularly in

the Third World. Had it not been for the Cuban government, many

countries in Africa would even be suffering more with the lack of

medical attention.

So I hope that this question is resolved with these two doctors

but I think that they have done a great humanitarian service to

the Third World, from Cuba. Thank you.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

We will now go to Congresswoman Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just ask a couple of questions. Of course, land reform was

central in the independence struggle with regard to the former

Rhodesia and now it is central in the elections.

I am wondering what the United States’ role has been in terms

of our foreign policy as it relates to land reform during this period.

Also in terms of donor help, has the United States or is it helping

in this effort?

I am still not clear on where we have been since independence

until now.

Ms. POWELL. As you say, it has been a historical problem that

they have been dealing with. There have been 90,000 families that

have been resettled on land that has been acquired in a willing

buyer/willing seller format over the last 20 years.

18

In 1998, the recognition was made among the donor community

that not enough had been done to address this question. The donor

community and the government of Zimbabwe negotiated and

agreed upon some principles which again continued the willing seller/willing buyer format.

They also tried to streamline some of the ownership requirements and the registration of property. They tried to ensure that

women could own property and some of the farmland. They also

tried to incorporate an element of poverty alleviation to the program, in addition to trying to make it very transparent.

The U.S. role in support of this was to provide expertise from the

University of Wisconsin’s Land Center. That program was continued up until March of this year when we had to suspend it as a

result of the actions by the government of Zimbabwe.

We would like to provide that support. We think the issue is a

real one and one that needs to be addressed, but only after the

elections have been free and fair.

Ms. LEE. But let me just ask you, though, in terms of the importance of land reform, have we ever just said, as part of our foreign

policy, ‘‘Do it; it is important; it is critical. If you do not do it,

things could blow up at some point’’?

Ms. POWELL. We have not. We have included it in our efforts to

address economic reforms and clearly if there is not a solution to

this effort under the economic reform program, Zimbabwe is not

going to be able to attract investment, not going to be able to move

the agricultural economy forward. It has also been an important

part of that, but it has not been, as you say, a sine qua non for

continuing the aid program.

Ms. LEE. May I ask one more question?

Let me just ask you with regard to the HIV/AIDS crisis in

Zimbabwe, which is devastating the country—it is another part of

this overall security issue?

First, based on some of the numbers we have, 26 percent of

working adults tested positive for HIV/AIDS. 240 out of 340 people

die of AIDS-related diseases each day. I know a large percentage

of the military is infected, also, in Zimbabwe.

Now, when President Mugabe sought to establish an AIDS levy,

there was major opposition—of course, from the labor unions and

other segments of the society. Primarily, I believe the reason was

the overtaxation already.

What have you found to be the case in Zimbabwe and how has

the national government addressed it as a priority, short of this

levy that has not been able to be, I guess, enacted at this point?

Ms. POWELL. You are quite right. It has not been enacted.

The government is taking a slightly more proactive stance on

AIDS, recognizing particularly its devastating impact on individual

families and particularly children, the impact that it will have

eventually on the work force and the economy. But, as I mentioned

earlier, we are still looking for much more leadership from the central government. We consider this to be a vital element of any government’s attack on HIV/AIDS. There must be central leadership

in order to attack this and to make people aware of the problem

and what is being done.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.

That completes our first panel but in summing up, I would ask

that the administration be prepared to make a hard-nosed call on

this election. I think there is no room for allowing a fudging of this

election. So I thank you very much, Ambassador Powell, for your

testimony here today.

For our second panel we are going to hear from Ambassador

Chester Crocker. He is the James Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. He served as assistant secretary of state for African affairs

from 1981 to 1989 and developed the diplomatic strategy that led

to the signing of the landmark New York Accord. Dr. Crocker did

undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his

masters and his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins.

Dr. Crocker may have to leave us early, so we appreciate his testimony and we are going to ask him to go first.

Before we do that, we are just going to introduce Patrick Merloe,

responsible for directing the National Democratic Institute and

their electoral programs, including constitutional and law reform

projects. He is involved in NDI programs related to the rule of law,

public policy advocacy, and citizen participation activities. Mr.

Merloe’s program activities in the last year have involved him in

Africa, Asia and throughout the world. Mr. Merloe did his undergraduate studies at Temple University and is a graduate of the

University of Pennsylvania Law School and we will hear from him

second.

Then we will hear from Lloyd Pierson, director of the Africa Division at the International Republican Institute. He was previously

an associate director of the Peace Corps and also served as a Peace

Corps country director in Ghana, Botswana and Namibia. Mr. Pierson earned a B.A. in international relations at the University of

Houston and did graduate studies in law and public administration.

He is no stranger to Capitol Hill, having worked as staff associate and administrative assistant. He has also appeared before

this Subcommittee previously.

So we will now go to Ambassador Crocker.

STATEMENTS OF CHESTER CROCKER, PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE

FOR THE STUDY OF DIPLOMACY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Mr. CROCKER. Thank you very much, Chairman Royce. Good to

be back here with you and your colleagues.

There has been a lot said about the trends and the facts on the

ground and there is a lot more that will be said by colleagues on

this panel and I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, maybe

focus a little bit more on what we can do, what realistically are the

options that we face. But just a few observations, and I have given

you a written statement, as well, but just a few observations on the

trend lines.

I have been a frequent visitor to Zimbabwe for the past 33 years

and first went there at a time when it was also a troubled country,

in the midst of its liberation struggle against minority rule, and I

have been many times since.

20

Zimbabwe has often seemed a troubled place. Right after independence there was a period of real troubles when many people lost

their lives. ZANU-PF was consolidating its monopoly of political

control.

So we have often seen Zimbabwe as a place, I think, where there

were the trappings of a democratic system but behind that facade,

if you will, there was the arbitrary use of official power, as much

official power as was needed to maintain a monopoly of control, an

uneven playing field for opposition and resort to the tactics of intimidation.

But until the late 1990’s, and is my first point that I would like

to underscore, Mr. Chairman, these practices remained within certain limits, maybe, in part, because only recently has the opposition really found its feet. But in any case, I think we are seeing

quite a different situation today in terms of the patterns of intimidation and abuse.

This is a dramatic situation now in Zimbabwe. We are 10 days

away from one of the most important elections in modern African

history. As has been noted, the opposition will run in every constituency. Thousands of observers will be there from a wide range

of local and foreign institutions.

There is excitement in the air in the country politically because

the constitutional referendum process demonstrated that there

really is competition in Zimbabwe. At least there is competition

when it is permitted.

The upcoming election is taking place against a widespread campaign of government-sanctioned and sponsored violence whose dimensions, I think, are generally pretty well known.

I would like to underscore something you said, Mr. Chairman.

One stands in awe at the courage and conviction of unarmed

oppositionists who are trying to compete in the political process

against a government which is playing by other rules, other rules

altogether, and these leaders in the opposition have come together

from a wide range of backgrounds—the union movement, the educational profession, the law, journalism, human rights advocacy,

women’s groups, and so forth, united in the belief that it is possible

for Zimbabwe to have peaceful, democratic change. Yet we know

how much of an uphill struggle this is.

This need not have happened in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a place,

Mr. Chairman, which has many things going for it in terms of its

resources, human and physical, in terms of the strength of its industrial economy, its commercial agriculture, which, until recently,

has been a key source of regional dynamism, making Zimbabwe a

significant commodity and food exporter and a key economic partner for all the countries of Southern Africa.

I would also say that the leadership in Zimbabwe over the years

has not been all on the negative side. This is not a country which

has been for the last 20 years governed the way it is being governed today.

Something has cracked. Something has gone wrong. Something

has gone badly off the tracks. This is a government which, at times

in the past, has been a constructive member of a regional community. No longer. No longer the case.

21

So those legacies have gone out the window and Zimbabwe’s policies of the past of pragmatism and reconciliation and regional cooperation have been replaced by the political of greedy adventurism

in the region, most notably in the Congo, and the politics of envy

and racial scapegoating at home.

The real problem, no matter what the government officials may

say, the real problems are of their own making. This is not about

land ownership. It is not about colonial legacies. It is not about the

role of white farmers. It is about power. It is really about power

and that is the long and the short of it. The primary challenge in

terms of power is coming from black Zimbabweans and I think we

have heard that already this morning from Morgan Tsvangirai and

his colleagues. Everything else is pure cover story—the playing of

racial cards by an embattled regime.

The sad part of all this to me, Mr. Chairman, is that this is not

the way Robert Mugabe started out his political career. It is not

the way he was for much of the past 20 years. He has made contributions to his country’s history and that of the region. While I

have often differed with him, I have respected him as a man of

substance, intelligence, and deep conviction. It is very sad to witness his fears of losing office crowd out those other qualities.

So we have a drama. This could be an implosion with broad regional implications far beyond those of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe affects an entire region. It is at the hub of an entire region. It is the

Southern African region’s second most important player in many

ways, both political and economic.

So I think we have a lot at stake. This is about our principles

and our interests in Zimbabwe, but it is also about Africa and

Southern Africa quite specifically.

Just to give one example, the South African currency has gone

down 10 to 15 percent in the past few months because of

Zimbabwe. It is as simple as that and there is no other explanation

for the performance of the rand. I know there are people who try

to give other explanations but that is my explanation.

What are we doing about it? My impression is that we are wringing our hands. We are hoping South Africans will rescue the situation. We are doing what we can to strengthen the democratic process and I applaud everything that we are doing as a government—

executive branch, Congress, and NGO’s, which are playing the lead

role—to try somehow and make this as democratic an election as

it can be. But we are not doing a whole lot beyond that to shape

events, either by ourselves or with our partners in Africa and Europe. I would suggest to you that things have deteriorated badly.

There are not any really attractive options left before us.

But there are two broad avenues we could consider. Of course,

we do not know how the election will come out. It is possible that

the election will come out better than we think, that the playing

field will be more level than we think, and that the opposition will

come out better than the worst case analyses have led us to believe. It is possible and we do not want to prejudge that result.

It may also be that the opposition would be very pleased, thank

you very much, if they win 50 seats, even if they know in their

heart of hearts that they could have won 90 and therefore they will

say, ‘‘Look, is the glass half empty or is it half full?’’ We have to

22

be a little careful, I think, in deciding ahead of time what is an acceptable outcome because it is for the people of Zimbabwe even in

these difficult circumstances to address that.

But I am not going to bet on an outcome as good as the one I

have just been talking about. If I were a betting man, I would not

bet on that kind of outcome. I would bet this election is going to

go south and that it is going to be substantially robbed. I am afraid

that is the case. I wish it were not the case.

So under one scenario, if that is indeed what happens, we have

the possibility, I suppose, assuming that violent intimidation and

police state tactics work, of deciding, ‘‘Do we engage with this leadership, warts and all, or not?’’ And by engage, I do not mean writing checks for them. I mean using every element of our actual and

potential leverage to try to pull them back from the edge of this

self-destructive orgy they are now in, and that will not be easy to

do and it will not be pretty to watch, but I think we do have leverage we have not really used that perhaps could get through in a

post-election environment. The goal would be to salvage a regionally dangerous situation and move the country’s leadership back

within the pale of minimally acceptable conduct.

This will not be easy, given our political values and our deep

commitment to those values, to engage with a group like this, but

it might be better to do that than to resort to the kind of petulant

self-isolating ostracism which we are all too frequently applying

around the world today and isolating ourselves.

The second option, and I speak very candidly, is to work through

all appropriate channels for a change in power in Zimbabwe, recognizing that perhaps it is destined to become Africa’s Romania and

that Mugabe is destined to become Africa’s Ceausescu. It was,

though, even in Romania, the people of Romania who made the

change ultimately, not Americans.

So if we were to decide to try and work for change in power in

Zimbabwe, I would hope that we would have the wisdom to be discrete, to be low-key and to avoid giving those in power there the

excuse that foreigners are out to get them.

We would treat Zimbabwe basically like a pariah under this option. We would disengage from official government-to-government

relationships, programming of any sort, and wait for the pressures

to mount, helping them along as best we can.

Under either approach, we must recognize that we are only one

country and that we should be in careful, practical and detailed

consultations with the South Africans, with the Zambians, with the

Mozambiquans and above all, with the British, who know this

place and have more influence there than we do.

So I hope that our current penchant around the world for what

I would call sloppy unilateralism can be brought under some semblance of control and that we can actually figure out how to work

with key players in the region who also have interests at stake in

Zimbabwe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocker appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. I thank you, Ambassador Crocker.

We will now go to Mr. Merloe.

23

STATEMENT OF PAT MERLOE, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS ON

ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL PROCESSES, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE

Mr. MERLOE. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to comment on the troubled election

and political processes that are surrounding the June 24–25 balloting in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your opening comments in today’s hearing. They were quite incisive and I can associate myself closely with them.

I will briefly summarize for you my prepared statement.

Zimbabwe is a pivotal country in Southern Africa and its democratic development is of exceptional importance to Africa and beyond. The international community supported the people of

Zimbabwe in their quest for independence and majority rule. Today

people around the world continue to support those striving in

Zimbabwe to promote democracy, the rule of law, and human

rights.

Zimbabwe’s parliamentary elections, to be held in less than 2

weeks, present a critical test for the country’s democratic development. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,

NDI, received requests from a variety of Zimbabwean political and

civic leaders to monitor the electoral developments. NDI has been

working in Zimbabwe since February 1999, through support from

the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for

International Development.

The goal of this work has been to promote dialogue among all of

the major political parties in order to reach a common understanding of the basic aspects of electoral reform needed to hold

credible elections.

As part of this work, we have taken leaders from civil society, political parties and electoral authorities to witness electoral developments in other countries where competitive elections have been

held, including South Africa and Mozambique. On February 4 and

5 of this year, we sponsored a roundtable with leaders of all of the

major political parties in Zimbabwe where they discussed and then

drafted a code of conduct for the parliamentary elections. Subsequently, all of the political parties except for ZANU-PF have adopted that code of conduct.

We also turned to a phase of training the trainers for poll watchers for the political parties in that country. 720 of them across the

10 provinces of Zimbabwe have been trained in order, again, to try

to bring some semblance of peace and civility into the electoral

process.

It is in this context that we received requests to observe the election and working in close cooperation with the International Republican Institute and other international and domestic election observer groups, we decided to observe the elections.

NDI then organized a multi-national preelection delegation that

visited Zimbabwe from the 15th to the 22nd of May. I was a member of that delegation, which was led by the Honorable Alex

Ekwueme, former vice president of Nigeria from 1979 to 1983

under that country’s civilian government. It included members of

parliament from neighboring Mozambique, from also Namibia, from

24

Kenya, from Canada. We received technical advice from the chief

election officer from South Africa, as well as from our Southern Africa team.

Since that time, NDI has maintained an in-country staff and

added a 10-person long-term observer group that has been deployed

around the country and that has been developing reports and information. There will be a report from that group that will be finished

by the end of this week, copies of which will be provided to the

Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, you were supplied a copy of NDI’s preelection delegation 17-page statement

which was issued on May 22 in Harare. It also has been included

as an appendix to my prepared statement.

That delegation concluded that the conditions for credible democratic elections did not exist at that time. Regrettably, conditions

for credible democratic elections still have not been established in

Zimbabwe. The effects of violence and attempts at political intimidation have undermined trust among many Zimbabweans in the

secrecy of the ballot and have raised fears of retribution for voting

against the ruling political party.

These factors could affect the voters’ decisions about whether to

vote and for whom to vote on June 24 and June 25. Political violence since Zimbabwe’s February 2000 referendum has restricted

the exercise of freedoms of opinion, expression, association, assembly and movement, as well as the right to be secure from physical

harm due to political affiliation. The abilities of political parties

and many candidates, predominantly from the opposition, to campaign openly and freely do not meet international standards for

electoral competition.

The election conditions fail to meet requirements contained in

the declaration of rights in Zimbabwe’s constitution and electoral

standards based upon international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on

Human and People’s Rights, which are applicable to Zimbabwe.

The level of violations of civil and political rights in Zimbabwe’s

election context led Amnesty International on June 6 to issue a report entitled ‘‘Zimbabwe: Terror Tactics in the Run-Up to the Parliamentary Elections, June 2000.’’ I provided copies of that report

to the Subcommittee and I would like to quote for you just two sentences from the first page of Amnesty International’s report.

‘‘Amnesty International has concluded from its inquiries’’—their

team in Zimbabwe—‘‘that there is evidence that the government of

Zimbabwe is either instigating or acquiescing in various violations

of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, torture, and

other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There

appears to be a deliberate and well thought out plan of systematic

human rights violations, with a clear strategy constituting statesponsored terror in the run-up to the June elections.’’

Although political violence appears to have diminished somewhat

during the past month, it continues at tragically high levels. An atmosphere of fear still prevails over much of the country. While supporters of the ruling party, ZANU-PF, and of the opposition parties

have been victims of political violence, the overwhelming predominance has concerned supporters of the opposition.

25

Mr. Chairman, while Zimbabwe’s election authorities have demonstrated in the past an ability to organize the administrative aspects of elections, there are serious problems in the legal framework for elections and election administration, as well. Should the

violence cease, electoral problems will come to the fore.

There was a consensus, for example, across the political spectrum that an independent election commission was required to organize credible elections. Following the defeat of the referendum,

the elections were called, however, without instituting that electoral reform.

Critical problems concerning a level playing field have also been

identified. There is heavy news bias favoring the political party

that is in power. The qualification requirements for state funding

result in only one party, ZANU-PF, receiving such funding. New

voters rolls, which have been created——

Mr. HOUGHTON. Would you please summarize?

Mr. MERLOE. Yes, I am coming to a conclusion, thank you. The

new voter rolls also provide concern that there may be disenfranchisement on the 24th and 25th of June.

Mr. Chairman, there also have been problems concerning election

observers, which my colleague Lloyd Pierson will address, that

have affected the plans of NDI and IRI. But despite these and

other obstacles that are serious, as we have seen, political parties

in the opposition and civic and religious leaders have been mobilizing to participate in the electoral process and to monitor it.

International experience has demonstrated that in countries like

Zimbabwe where violence and fear undermine credibility, it is necessary for the government to take extraordinary steps to win the

confidence for there to be a meaningful election that can be accepted by the opposition, ruling party, and the citizenry alike. It is unfortunate that such efforts have not been made in Zimbabwe. It is

hoped that responsible authorities will take swift action in the 11

days that remain.

It is unfortunate, however, that in 11 days remaining before the

election, there is not really time or the opportunity to discuss a

level playing field. That question is settled. We hope that there can

be nonetheless a peaceful and orderly election that takes place and

that political violence will stop and there will not be retributions

in the post-election period. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merloe appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Merloe.

Now we will go to Mr. Pierson.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD PIERSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR

AFRICA, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE

Mr. PIERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to, in the beginning, say a particular thanks and appreciation to

you and Congressman Payne and the other Members of this Committee for all of your outstanding support for democracy and governance programs and particularly for this hearing focussing on

Zimbabwe.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the

opportunity to appear here today and comment on one of the most

powerful democratic reform movements currently under way, not

26

only in Africa but in the world. A courageous coalition of political

parties, trade unions, civil society groups, religious organizations

and what appears to be an overwhelming percentage of the

Zimbabwe people are sending a very strong message that a desperate authoritarian regime will not last.

For those of us who have a longstanding deep affection for

Zimbabwe, for those who recognize the talents, work ethics and

values of most Zimbabweans, for those who know that democracy

has won the intellectual battle as the best political system to guarantee open and transparent government and protect individual liberties, for those who cherish life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

and believe that government should be of, for and by the people,

current events in Zimbabwe are very painful.

The present government of Zimbabwe began its journey in 1980

with great hope. Many currently in the opposition were originally

a part of ZANU-PF, the majority party, or considered themselves

in partnership to foster a peaceful transition from Rhodesian colonial rule. Education and health care facilities were improved. Land

reform was and continues to be considered a necessity by virtually

all Zimbabweans.

After 20 years in power, the government has lost its way. Democracy and good governance have been shoved aside for power and

control. Due process, free speech, rule of law, freedom of the press

and the right to assembly are not only under attack by the government; it is the Mugabe government that clearly ignores rulings of

the judicial branch and suppresses its own people.

Mr. Chairman, a very strong Sense of the House Resolution has

been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. I might comment that when Mr. Hastings was making a statement and some

questions to Assistant Secretary Powell, he brought up the need for

very tough measures concerning Zimbabwe and we agree with that

and he brought up the Sense of the House Resolution.

The Sense of the House Resolution really had its origins, Mr.

Chairman, in early March in a meeting in your office with the reform delegation members who came from Zimbabwe. The impact of

that Sense of the House Resolution in no way should be underestimated. While many Sense of the House Resolutions may, in fact,

be routine or a matter of course, that Sense of the House Resolution had a major impact in Zimbabwe.

I might have to check my chronology on it but I believe that that

statement was the first major statement from any U.S. part, executive branch or the legislative branch or any organization, that really dealt with the violence, the intimidation, the harassment in this

troubled preelection period and rule of law in Zimbabwe. You, Mr.

Gilman, Mr. Hastings and others were among the Members of Congress that have strongly supported that resolution. Very strong legislation regarding Zimbabwe has been introduced in the Senate.

In Zimbabwe we have seen and believe that the opportunity

genuinely exists for an open, transparent government. IRI’s interest is in the development of a multi-party system and a government that is for the people, not for itself.

I want to also stress that the democratic reform movement in

Zimbabwe is being led and supported by the people of Zimbabwe,

not external organizations. The democratic reform movement will

27

continue with or without IRI or any other international assistance.

There should be no mistake about that. We can, however, have an

impact by showing our support for democracy and good governance.

The stakes are very high in this election. The parliamentary elections on June 24 and 25 are for 120 seats. The parliament, the National Assembly, actually has 150 seats. Thirty of those are named

by the president of the country. Of the 120 seats, and each individual runs in what is called a constituency, which is similar to our

congressional district, of the 120 seats currently in the parliament,

117 of those are from the majority party. Based on statistical analysis of the February 12 referendum and what the opposition sees

as their opportunity in this election, they have estimated that as

much as 100 of those seats in the June 24–25 balloting could go

to the opposition.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the International Republican

Institute at this time has a commitment to send an international

observer delegation to these elections. We already have six observers on the ground. There is an accreditation problem. We do not

know at this time if the observers who we have presently in

Zimbabwe or this delegation is going to be accredited. There are innumerable number of problems and difficulties that we are having.

Shortly before this hearing began, I talked with our resident director in Zimbabwe who had just returned from a meeting at the

United States Embassy. The process for accreditation of IRI and

NDI over the past several weeks has changed virtually daily. The

latest requirement is that no nongovernment organization from the

United States will be accredited as an observer mission.

The deputy chief of mission of the State Department met today

at the Foreign Ministry in Zimbabwe and was advised that the

only delegation that would be accredited from the United States

would be an official delegation from the U.S. Embassy, that no nongovernment organization not going through the U.S. Embassy

would be accredited.

We have a commitment, we have a very strong commitment to

observe and monitor these elections and we intend to abide by that

but I do want you, Mr. Chairman, to know that there is a serious

problem right now and we have to—I did mention to Assistant Secretary Powell shortly before her testimony, she is aware of this requirement. They are verifying it and we will do other verification

today.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony but I did want you

to know that there is a serious problem with the accreditation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierson appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Pierson, thank you very much. I thank you all

for your testimony.

I guess I would turn to Ambassador Crocker at this point and

ask the Ambassador—I noticed he was reflecting on your comments

and on Mr. Merloe’s. What advice, Ambassador, would you give

NDI at this point and IRI and what advice would you give us with

that new information that we just heard?

Mr. CROCKER. Chairman Royce, that is interesting and new information. There is obviously a very elaborate political process of

accreditation under way and I gather numbers like thousands of

28

observers are being mentioned. I do not have a precise number to

put on it.

My recommendation would be to our executive branch and the

State Department that we ought to see to it that no foreign government can conduct itself that way because we are going to make IRI

and NDI part of our official delegation. That is what I would do.

I would turn it right back around on itself.

Mr. ROYCE. I see. That is an interesting approach. I am glad I

asked that. I think that——

Mr. PIERSON. I do not know if NDI and IRI want to be embraced

as part of the official delegation.

Mr. ROYCE. That is true; we should ask them. But we will continue this dialogue actually after the hearing and Mr. Merloe, I will

talk with you and Mr. Pierson at that time.

Of course, much of your focus, Ambassador, was on what we

could do multilaterally. Tell us what some of our multilateral options would be if the administration could work in tandem right

now. I know we had a meeting here with President Mbeki. He was

very concerned. I know worldwide there is a great deal of apprehension about what is going on. What do you think multilaterally

could be done at this time, in the next 2 weeks and then after?

Mr. CROCKER. I am glad you mentioned the South Africans, Mr.

Chairman, because they are very central. Pressures from the outside world which are not fully supported and focussed by the South

Africans will be highly diluted by the time they get to Zimbabwe.

This is a landlocked country which depends on its maritime coastal

neighbors, principally Mozambique and South Africa. As we now

from the history, going back to the bad years of Ian Smith, it was

the same back then and if the South Africans were on another

sheet of music, it did not work.

So we have to work closely with the South Africans and it would

be helpful, I think, if our legislative bodies in both countries could

be seen to be on the same page and our executive branches on the

same page.

I am glad to hear what you said, Mr. Chairman, about President

Mbeki’s stance. The trouble is sometimes there are a variety of

messages coming from South Africa about the election that is coming up and that, I think, has complicated things.

But this situation in Zimbabwe is having a dire effect on the

South African economy. It is a direct threat to the prospects for investment throughout Southern Africa and I think we start with our

friends in the region.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I would point to the role of the international financial agencies, which we and our industrial allies basically can shape their decisions, both positively and negatively.

There has been some focus previously this morning on what we

could suspend and cutoff and, of course, there are things that are

in suspense already. There are not a lot of resources, if any, flowing from the IFI’s to Zimbabwe today.

But looking to the future, there might come a time when we

would like to be able to describe a positive, significant, substantial

package for Zimbabwe under different conditions and we can also

help to orchestrate that because these are clubs and institutions

whose keys we control, to be quite blunt about it, and I think we

29

can use that leverage effectively, more effectively perhaps than we

have.

Third, I would go back to my point about our British allies and

the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is an important institution for Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth is a very significant part

of Zimbabwe’s international relationships. But we are not a member of the Commonwealth and are not applying to join, to my

knowledge, so that suggests that maybe we should be talking more

closely and more operationally than we are with the British about

what could be done. The British have very substantial influence

and knowledge of the place, so I think we should be working together, both on immediate operational questions like land reform

packages and on longer-term issues, like what do we do with this

government going forward?

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador.

Colin Powell and I chaired an election observer team a year ago

in Nigeria where I worked with Mr. Pierson, IRI, NDI, and Don

Payne worked us, our Ranking Member, in that trip to Nigeria for

the election and that election was a step toward full democracy in

Nigeria.

The NDI and IRI have observed many elections throughout the

world and one of the questions I would ask is in what instances

have you declared an election unacceptable? Have you done that in

the past? What were those instances? I would just be interested in

hearing that. Mr. Merloe?

Mr. MERLOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, indeed there have

been instances in the past where elections have been declared by

IRI, ourselves and others, to be unacceptable. We are staring at

that situation right now in Zimbabwe, to be frank with you, sir.

The preelectoral conditions are critical to examining any election

process and by all standards, Zimbabwe’s preelection environment

has failed.

The use of the media, the qualification of only one party for state

funding, the situation of violence and intimidation that has restricted the ability to campaign and has intimidated citizens who

make up the electorate, these are conditions that weigh very heavily. Even if election day itself is calm and goes well, we may be in

a position where we will not be able to say that the will of the electorate, which provides the authority of government, has been expressed. I think it is a very grave circumstance that we look at in

Zimbabwe, sir.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Merloe.

Mr. Pierson?

Mr. PIERSON. Mr. Chairman, there have been instances in which

IRI and NDI individually and also jointly have said that an election in a particular country did not meet international standards,

was not a credible election.

Our commitment in Zimbabwe is to observe the entire process

before we make a final statement but it is certainly headed in that

direction in which we would make a very direct, straightforward

statement relating to the intimidation, the harassment, the problems with the voter registration rolls, auditing those voter registration rolls, accreditation problems, problems with monitors being

able to monitor at the polling stations and the counting centers.

30

A part of our planning, Mr. Chairman, before even venturing into

the observation process in Zimbabwe was to make sure that the

delegation team that we have going, because of the importance and

the problems that are under way in Zimbabwe, has been to make

sure that we have a very experienced delegation team. I think

every individual, including staff from both sides of the aisle here,

have observed elections in the past. We have IRI staff members

going who have observed anywhere, at least from 10 to 12 on up

elections, so we are very conscious of the serious, serious nature of

this election process.

Mr. ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Don Payne and then to

Dr. John Cooksey, Congressman from Louisiana, but before we do,

the last question I would ask is just to name some of the countries,

if you could, where elections have been found unacceptable in

terms of fair and free.

Mr. PIERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would have to go back and read

the statement just to make sure, but the one that does come to

mind, and I know much of the team we have going to Zimbabwe

is also a team that went to Azerbaijan and commented on those

elections. I would like for the record to be able to expand on that

but that is one country that comes to mind.

Mr. MERLOE. Mr. Chairman, if I may, it is unfortunate to say

that recently there have been a number of such elections and the

situation in Zimbabwe must be viewed in that context because

autocrats and would-be autocrats around the world are observing

very closely each other.

What we have witnessed in Peru, for example, is an election that

did not meet international standards and NDI and the Carter Center, which were working jointly there, decided not to send an observation team because of that. Azerbaijan was an example, but in

January of this year in Kyrgyzstan, the elections failed to meet

international standards.

We believe that it is unfortunate. There has been such progress

in Africa. You gave the happy example of Nigeria and the Nigerians have played an important role in our observation efforts in

Zimbabwe, very important efforts that have gone forward in Namibia and in Southern Africa in general. We think this is an unfortunate retrogression and we think it is important to keep a close

eye.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Payne and then Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.

I am sorry I missed most of the testimony but could you just

quickly describe what NDI does, as opposed to IRI? I know one

usually trains local people; others deal with technical parts. Could

you both give me about a 30-second synopsis of what each of you

do?

Mr. MERLOE. Yes, thank you, Congressman.

Mr. PAYNE. In Zimbabwe.

Mr. MERLOE. In Zimbabwe, yes, of course. In Zimbabwe, over the

course of the last year and a half, NDI has worked with a broad

spectrum of political parties to try to reach consensus about needed

electoral reforms, including the drafting of a code of conduct, which

was approved by the representatives of all parties in February 4

31

and 5. The executive committees of all of the parties except ZANUPF also have signed that code of conduct, sir.

We have worked to train political party poll watchers. 740 trainers from all of the parties in all 10 provinces are now going and

training poll watchers around the country.

We have taken representatives of the parties and civil society to

observe elections in neighboring countries that have been competitive, such as South Africa and Mozambique.

We have concentrated our international observation of elections,

in cooperation with IRI, in the preelection period, sir, through our

delegation that was there in May and a team of 10 people that

have been observing and will observe for some months afterwards.

We plan a post-election delegation and will have several members

joining the IRI international delegation.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Mr. PIERSON. Congressman, we started work in Zimbabwe in

1993. Approximately 2 years ago we felt that this democratic reform movement was really going to take shape and focus, that it

was a people’s movement in Zimbabwe and we quadrupled our program activities there. Those activities have ranged from support to

legal coalitions in Zimbabwe to challenging executive or legislative

branch rulings or decisions that would impact on human rights.

We are helping to support voter education programs in

Zimbabwe. We have subgrants with organizations that are working

to encourage greater woman participation in the political process,

greater youth participation, and presently we are also helping to

train over 3,000 domestic monitors.

We have been there for some time in the preelection period. We

also, in the post-election period, through the National Endowment

for Democracy, have funds in which we will train the newly elected

parliamentarians.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

What other groups are there, like NDI or IRI, from other donor

countries? Are there others? Do you work along with other British

or Scandinavian groups?

Mr. MERLOE. Yes, Congressman Payne, we are working very

closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat that set up its observation mission and also the European Union, which has 110 observers that have been sent to watch this election process. They, too,

have had problems with their accreditation process.

We are working, most importantly, very closely with the domestic

observers that have been involved in the referendum and have

been monitoring the process since then. So there is a close cooperation, not just between the two party institutes from the United

States but also internationally with the observation teams and

with the domestic teams.

Mr. PIERSON. Our resident director in Zimbabwe, Congressman,

yesterday was a part of the briefings with the EU. We are in constant contact with all of the other international organizations that

are there. Obviously frequent contact with our colleagues from the

National Democratic Institute.

In terms of deployment, there are the 120 constituencies in

Zimbabwe; there are approximately 4,000 polling stations. In terms

of if we do get accredited and a lot of the obstacles there get surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:50 Sep 21, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66616.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
32

mounted, then in terms of deployment, IRI, NDI delegation, where

those deployments will be is also being coordinated together so we

do not find just one large delegation at one or two polling stations.

We are working on that; coordination is very important.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Let me just ask Dr. Crocker, when did you serve—was it 1981

to 1985 or 1985 to 1989 or——

Mr. CROCKER. All the above, Congressman Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. When were you the assistant secretary for African affairs, if there was such a title at that time?

Mr. CROCKER. 1981 through the middle of 1989.

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Then you were there at the time of the Lancaster House commitment, so to speak.

Mr. CROCKER. That was the Carter Administration that was in

office at that time. That was 1979. The fall of 1979 was Lancaster

House and then the early months of 1980 was the lead-up to independence, which came in April 1980. I was not yet in office until

January 1981, sir.

Mr. PAYNE. So we cannot totally blame you for that one.

Mr. CROCKER. Not totally, on that one.

Mr. PAYNE. You have enough on your plate. We do not need to

give you that one, right?

But since you came in shortly after that, and I am looking at

some of the work done by the Congressional Research Service,

which usually does a pretty objective job, it talks about this question of the land. It says Britain was obligated to finance the purchase of land from whites for redistribution in part because British

subjects had initially taken the land by force, particularly because

of commitments they felt were made at Lancaster House negotiations. I guess this is Mugabe’s point.

Since the whole question of Lancaster House commitments is

now becoming a tool that Mugabe is using to try to gain some

upper hand—I mean it is a real issue—what is your recollection of

what the British said they would do and what the Carter Administration said that they would do as it related to the land redistribution and compensation?

Mr. CROCKER. Congressman Payne, I do not have a photographic

memory and that is quite a while ago. I think the British were in

the lead position on this issue. There were probably some encouraging signals—body language and so on—sent by American diplomats, as well, that in the right context, there would be some

funding for land reform, but that context would have to include a

credible program, Zimbabwe program for distributing whatever

land could be acquired under a willing buyer/willing seller basis

and, of course, that context has never been developed.

So the issue today in Zimbabwe, if I could fast-forward for a

minute, is not a shortage of land for distribution; it is absence of

a governmental program that has any credibility or transparency

for distributing the land that is available for distribution. Several

million hectares are available for distribution and they have been

identified as such. They are not even being used.

So that is not the issue. The issue is the government does not

have a package, a program in place for deciding who would get it

33

and for administering the details of that, which is quite complicated.

I think everyone agrees there needs to be land reform in

Zimbabwe but not just to cronies from the regime. I think that has

been the sticking point.

The British are the experts on what they promised or did not

promise and I really would have to take your question and maybe

give you a written answer, look into it a bit more closely, sir.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Just one last point. When the incident between Zimbabwe and

the U.S.—I think President Carter—was that during your time? Do

you remember when President Carter was invited on the Fourth of

July and there was some lower level—some government official

made some bad remarks? When was that, do you recall?

Mr. CROCKER. That would have been about 1985. If memory

serves, it was a Fourth of July ceremony and a minister of the government of Zimbabwe chose the occasion of the U.S. Fourth of July

party in to U.S. Embassy to trash the United States. President

Carter, to his credit, and the entire U.S. diplomatic mission walked

out of their own reception.

It is not unusual, actually. There have been other cases in U.S.—

Zimbabwean relations when one wondered why we were talking to

each other because it was not working very well, but that was certainly one of them.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Cooksey and then Mr. Meeks.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for

being here.

Could I ask a question? Ambassador Nancy Powell is no longer

here. Is there anyone here from the State Department? You are

from the State Department, OK.

I have been dealing with Africa about 2 hours yesterday and

since 8:30 this morning, back in this room and in my office. I

missed your testimony.

Questions. I, too, am concerned about the integrity of the elections. We have the same problem in Louisiana. We have a story we

tell in Louisiana that we sold some old voting machines to Mexico

and that Edwin Edwards won the first election in Mexico that they

used them in. It is just that bad; it has been that bad in Chicago.

In Miami, they overturned a Miami election, mayor’s election, not

too long ago.

It happens in the United States and it just makes me madder

that you know what when I see people stealing elections, and they

go on here and we have been the victims in Louisiana and in the

United States in various places and it just makes me madder than

heck that it is going on over there, too. It is the same mentality

of people that are dishonest, that are demagogues, that are powerhungry and do not really care about doing the right thing.

My question then, and I want you to answer this, if we went into

Nicaragua and tried to get Ortega out, who is a Communist; we

went into Panama and got Noriega out, who was a drug dealer and

a hood and a crook; and then we kicked the temporary ruler of Kuwait out named Saddam Hussein, and Milosevic in the Balkans,

why is it that we tippy-toe in Africa?

34

Republicans have done it and Democrats have done it. Are all of

the political leaders cowards? Why aren’t they consistent? When we

talk about human rights with PNTR, with China, explain to me

why these wimpy politicians in the Democrat Party and the Republican Party ignore people who have had their arms cutoff in Sierra

Leone, people who have been brutalized in Zimbabwe, in Mozambique, and I was in Mozambique during the last part of that civil

war, and in Liberia.

Anybody want to take that question? The man from the State

Department, give me an explanation. Give me an excuse for these

politicians. You are not politicians; you are diplomats; you are

statesmen.

But I’ll tell you up front I am brutal on politicians wherever they

are.

Mr. PIERSON. Congressman, I do not want to be an apologist for

anyone but let me address the situation in Zimbabwe.

I think in Zimbabwe you have some of the most courageous, patriotic people that I have ever seen anywhere. I had the opportunity to live in Africa for over 7 years. 1991 I negotiated the Peace

Corps bilateral agreement for Peace Corps to enter into Zimbabwe.

I cannot say I am a Zimbabwe expert but I have had a long-time

interest in the country——

Mr. COOKSEY. When was that?

Mr. PIERSON. 1991, sir.

I think the people there are among the most courageous,l and I

am not just talking party people. I mean civil society, individuals.

One of the things that has impressed me is in Zimbabwe this is not

just a political party movement. This is a people’s movement that

is going on in which the lines are very clear between those who

want democratic reform and those who do not and will suppress

that democratic reform.

One of the messages that we as an organization in every country

in which we operate do encourage, though, is that in a democracy,

you have a peaceful transition. There have been times during the

course of this where we know that the opposition and the reform

individuals have brought up the possibility of violence against violence and our message has always been that we represent, we

think, the best democracy in the world and in that democracy, political power is gained by dialogue, not by arms.

Now, we know that Mr. Mandela in South Africa, who has had

long disagreements with Mr. Mugabe, in a statement earlier this

year in Pretoria, I believe, lot a UNICEF gathering made the comment that people should take up arms against tyrants, and he was

asked, ‘‘Who do you mean?’’ and he said, ‘‘You know who I mean,’’

meaning Mr. Mugabe.

But I do not think there is any weakness involved. We are not

talking about military action. We are not encouraging people to

take up arms. What we are encouraging, Congressman, is for people who want democracy to do that in a very peaceful way and we

think the idea of democracy—they may not win all the seats that

they expect but as long as they are on that path, that is the path

that we have always encouraged them to do.

Mr. COOKSEY. There is no question that is the best way to do it.

35

I am an eye surgeon. I was over there working on eye surgery.

The first year I went over there I was frustrated because things

were not moving as fast as a manic surgeon—we like to move

quickly. After a while I kind of got into the thing, had the attitude

of kudu metati and I thought, are we getting into that same mentality in this country?

Mr. PIERSON. I will let my colleague from NDI also speak, and

Ambassador Crocker, but I would say we need to be very tough in

terms of Zimbabwe, very, very tough. A part of that toughness already I think has been the Sense of the House Resolution from the

House, the bill introduced by Senator Frist to the Africa Subcommittee on the Senate side, which is very tough legislation, and

that is the kind of thing I think we ought to be looking at.

Mr. MERLOE. I will be very brief, Congressman. First, I would

agree that the House Resolution 500, Senator McCain introducing

an almost identical resolution in the Senate, the Senate bill that

has been mentioned, these things all deserve serious consideration

and the government of this country, as well as governments of

other countries, I believe, have to apply the same standards everywhere, whether it is in Africa, whether it is in Latin America,

whether it is in Asia or Europe, whether it is the former Soviet

states or whether it is a state coming from a military dictatorship.

That is what we do. That is what we try to do and all we can do

is call on others to do so, as well.

Like many Members of this Subcommittee, I was one of the people who supported the movement in Zimbabwe for independence

and for majority rule and there would be nothing I would like better than to bring to you a report that things are moving positively

there, but they are not.

What we really should be concentrating upon and it is not too

early to concentrate upon is the question of what will happen in

the post-election period. Beyond these elections, there is a threat

of continuing violence, no matter which way the results turn out.

There is a possibility of retribution and there needs to be a strong

signal from the international community coming from Washington,

coming from Brussels, coming from Pretoria, that these sorts of

things will not be tolerated in Zimbabwe.

I had the honor to work with President Carter just 10 days ago

and former President Carazo from Costa Rica drafting a letter to

the OAS calling on them to call the situation in Peru like it was

and to take strong measures within the OAS.

This is a worldwide problem and it is a problem that I think we

have to address with the kind of forthrightness that Members of

the Subcommittee have done and to continue to be vigilant in the

days and the months ahead and not to turn our attention away

when elections are over.

The fortunate thing about elections is it concentrates international attention on a country as it calls upon the citizens to rise

to the occasion and to act in the national interest. The unfortunate

thing is that we often turn our attention away to the next problem

afterwards, and there is a lot to be done in Zimbabwe. The people

there, as my colleague has pointed out, deserve our support.

Mr. CROCKER. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROYCE. We will now go to Mr. Meeks.

36

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am concerned in regards to making sure that there is peace, although I do not really know—I just left some young people when

I left out of here and I talked to them and they just made me mindful. I am not sure whether we are the ones that can best advise

on land reform because coming from descendants of slaves myself,

I am still waiting for my 40 acres and a mule of land reform right

here in America, and that has not happened.

So I also then was reminded therefore of a statement that President Mugabe said and I just was wondering what kind of response

you would give. He said, ‘‘Land was taken from our people during

colonization’’—this is a direct quote. ‘‘Land was taken from our people during colonization without compensation but now the British

say we must pay compensation for the soil stolen from us.’’

Question then is, and we did not do anything. There was a question that was asked by the gentlelady from California to the secretary beforehand or the Ambassador beforehand in regards to

what was America’s role in trying to make sure that there was

land reform before we got to this point and I did not hear anything

that we did that tried to make sure that there was a land reform

and, in essence, 40 acres and a mule to individuals in Zimbabwe

after the 1980 revolution in Zimbabwe, just as we did not do in our

own country.

So how would you respond? What rational response would you

submit that we give to Mr. Mugabe and some others who had property violently taken from them back during the colonization period

of time and now some of these people who want the land back, they

do not have the resources to pay for some of the land.

I understand Mr. Crocker’s point that we do have to have a process; there has to be a process put in place and it cannot go to just

the cronies. That point is well taken because we have to make sure,

but how can we then actively play a role in that process and making a difference in regards to land reform in Zimbabwe, and responding to Mr. Mugabe’s comments, also.

Mr. CROCKER. If I may, with the permission of the chair, I do not

think anyone debates that land reform is a legitimate issue in

Zimbabwe, but I think the second point—and clearly, land was

taken from the indigenous people. That is what colonialism was

about. It was about taking land and in many cases settling land.

So there is no debate about the historical record. The land was stolen fair and square, just like the Panama Canal was in our own

history. I do not think anyone debates that.

The issue is in 20 years, what has the government of Zimbabwe

done to rectify the problem? It has done nothing, despite offers of

resources and offers of land availability?

So it has been very hard, I think, for our country to figure out

a context to work in, precisely as you were saying. I think we have

tried and Assistant Secretary Powell described what we were doing

until this thing got interrupted by the seizures of land.

But one final observation I would make is that I do not think

that President Mugabe wants a solution to this problem. I think he

wants to use this problem. This problem is not a new problem.

Every time there has been an election in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980 there has been a land reform debate and there has

37

been talk about getting access to land for the majority of

Zimbabweans, but it is stirred up in time for elections, Congressman Meeks. It is not, in fact, resolved because it is very convenient

to use it in elections. I wish it were not the case but it is just opportunism.

Mr. PIERSON. I agree in entirety with Dr. Crocker. I think the

only thing that I would add in terms of information that we have

seen available to us is that much of the government land that has

been available has gone to the president, President Mugabe, and

to government ministers.

I believe approximately 2 months ago there was finally a confidential release and my recollection of 500 different very large

plots or farms that had been available that the government had

owned and my recollection, Congressman, is that all of that land

had gone to ministers or ZANU official at extraordinarily low lease

rates.

But I do not think there is anyone—there are very few people

that would disagree in terms that the land issue is a major issue

in Zimbabwe and needs to be addressed in a very practical, pragmatic way.

Mr. MERLOE. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, just a brief

response.

Congressman Meeks, I totally agree with you, both about the reference to the United States history, as well as the situation in

Zimbabwe.

I had the honor, with our delegation, less than 3 weeks ago to

sit with Bishop Muzararwa, Reverend Sitole, the Honorable Margaret Dongo, who have brought together their political parties into

the voting pact in opposition. Each of their parties has a position

on land reform. As we heard from Morgan Tsvangirai, his party

has a position on land reform.

I also had the opportunity to sit with the leaders of ZANU-PF

and the National Democratic Institute has maintained relationships with ZANU-PF, as well as with the other parties, and they,

too, talked about the fight for land reform.

I think there is a unanimity among the majority of people within

Zimbabwe that land reform is critical. It has been critical as the

question of independence. It is tied to the identify of the country

and it is something that has to be resolved.

As members of the international community, I think we have to

not be hypocritical and call upon our own countries to push for

this, no matter who may be in government. So I would agree with

you, sir.

Mr. MEEKS. In fact, I would say we could lead by example. Give

me my 40 acres and a mule and all of my people who are descendants of slavery and then we can show them how we can have some

true land reform and then maybe they can follow our example.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROYCE. That concludes our hearing and I want to thank our

witnesses, our panel.

I also want to thank Charmaine Houseman. I am going to ask

her to stand. I want to acknowledge her good work for this Committee because she is our staff associate for the Africa Subcommittee. She is leaving us after 2 years to attend law school and

38

she has done a great job and we wish Charmaine the best in law

school. Thanks, Charmaine.

Thank you all for attending this hearing.

Witnesses, thanks for making the trip out here. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(39)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 13, 2000

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95