U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–836PDF 2016

THE FUTURE OF U.S.–ZIMBABWE RELATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 3, 2015

Serial No. 114–128

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Shannon Smith, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 5

Mr. Ben Freeth, Executive Director, Mike Campbell Foundation ....................... 20

Ms. Imani Countess, Regional Program Director for Africa, The Solidarity 

Center .................................................................................................................... 36

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Shannon Smith, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 8

Mr. Ben Freeth: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 23

Ms. Imani Countess: Prepared statement ............................................................. 38

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

(1)

THE FUTURE OF U.S.–ZIMBABWE RELATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:57 p.m., in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The subcommittee will come to order. 

And let me begin by apologizing to all of you, especially our distinguished witnesses, for the lateness. We did have a series of 10 

votes. Right? 

Ms. BASS. Fourteen. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Fourteen votes. So it took a little 

time, and I apologize. 

Good afternoon. 

Zimbabwe is a country, as we know, the size of Montana with a 

population of nearly 14 million people. However, its mineral wealth 

gives it an outsized importance. The southern Africa nation is the 

world’s largest source of platinum, gold group-metals, and has significant reserves of nickel, gold, chromium, and dozens of other 

metals and minerals. Significant diamond reserves were discovered 

in 2006. 

Currently, about 40 percent of the country’s foreign exchange is 

earned from the export of these metals and minerals. But, above 

all, its people are its greatest resource. 

The abundance of such minerals, however, and their exploitation, 

which has driven the relationship between many in the West and 

Zimbabwe, since its colonization by Cecil Rhodes of the British 

South Africa Company in 1889 on behalf of Great Britain, the area 

once known as Southern Rhodesia has experienced a tumultuous 

history. The White minority gained self-governance in 1922, and a 

1930 Land Apportionment Act restricted Black access to land, making many Africans laborers and not landowners. 

In 1964, the White minority government unsuccessfully sought 

independence from Great Britain and then unilaterally declared 

independence a year later under White rule. This move sparked 

international outrage in economic sanctions, and that regime was 

never widely recognized by the international community, though 

the support of White ruled South Africa enabled the government to 

limp along. 

2

Meanwhile, Black opposition to minority rule, which began in the 

1930s, erupted in the gorilla war in 1972. Attempts to end the conflict diplomatically failed until the 1979 talks brokered by Great 

Britain resulted in British supervised independence elections. 

The winner of that election was Robert Mugabe, leader of the 

Zimbabwe African National Union, or ZANU, who at age 91 continues to rule this country in large part through intimidation and 

manipulation of elections. 

As a hero of the independence and majority rule movements, 

however, Mugabe has enjoyed the support of many other African 

leaders who have considered him an honored elder and have generally declined to join international efforts to sanction his government. This has placed the United States in an awkward position 

with limited African support for political and economic reforms that 

the people so desperately need in Zimbabwe. 

Although many observers have credited the Mugabe Government 

with productive management until fairly recent years, there were 

political problems from the beginning of his rule. For example, 

Mugabe fired fellow independence leader Joshua Nkomo in 1982 

and then launched a campaign to suppress what his government 

called a rebellion by pro-Nkomo forces. 

The Mugabe regime has been accused of killing thousands of ethnic Ndebele citizens over the next few years to end the supposed 

rebellion, assisted by military advisers from East Germany and 

North Korea. 

Once one of the leading industrial nations in Africa, Zimbabwe 

has long been in an economic downward spiral in the 1990s. It 

began then. Squatters, with the support of the Zimbabwe Government, seized White farms they claim to have been stolen by White 

settlers in the past. Despite government assurances these farms 

were not transferred to Black farm workers, but, rather, to cronies 

of the Mugabe government, euphemistically called veterans, who 

lacked agricultural experience. 

Both Blacks and Whites in Zimbabwe acknowledge that the land 

policies have been unfair, but the manner of addressing this problem led to serious economic problems for the country. Agricultural 

production fell, and the manufacturing sector, heavily tied to agriculture, also diminished. 

Efforts to squeeze currency from shrinking national reserves, 

from businesses, coupled with the disastrous requirement that 

businesses use the fictitious exchange rate, caused retailers to lose 

money with each and every sale. The effort to close the many vendors who supply tourists with souvenirs and citizens with necessary household items was yet another milestone in Zimbabwe’s 

economic collapse. 

By the year 2006, the year-on-year inflation exceeded 1,000 percent. Devaluation of the currency and the subsequent use of foreign 

currency are credited with eventually preventing a complete economic collapse. 

Zimbabwe and the United States have had a tempestuous relationship since that southern African nation emerged from White 

minority rule. Part of the problem has been resentment by 

Zimbabwean President Mugabe and his closest advisers against the 

United States for not supporting their liberation movement, the 

3

backdrop to which was the geopolitical conflict between the Soviet 

Union and the United States. 

Another part of the problem has been the justifiable public criticism of repressive political policies by the Mugabe government by 

successive U.S. administrations. Consequently, the minimal communications between our two governments have contributed to suspicions and an inability for the U.S. officials to reach out to and 

be cooperative with Zimbabwe officials. 

Successive elections have been the subject of opposition and 

international criticism for the lack of political space, allowed for 

those who would challenge the ruling ZANU party. Arrests, incarcerations, torture in custody, beatings at public rallies and demonstrations, and disappearances of government opponents have denied legitimacy to the Zimbabwe election process. 

The country’s commitment to democratic governance has been 

further placed in question due to a series of repressive laws preventing freedoms of speech, association, and movement. As if the 

government’s repressive tactics are not troubling enough, political 

jockeying in Zimbabwe, including the dismissal of Vice President 

Joice Mujuru, places the succession to President Mugabe in doubt, 

which puts U.S. policy in question. 

Today’s hearing will examine current U.S. policy toward 

Zimbabwe and the prospects for an enhanced relationship, depending on events that have not yet taken place. Of course, in foreign 

policy, one cannot wait until the crisis materializes in order to create a planned response and have contingencies. A leader nearing 

the century mark, presiding over a fractious political scene in a 

country that has experienced political and economic turmoil, creates a situation which planning for positive outcome to regime 

change must be devised. 

Zimbabwe is a country rich in both natural and human potential. 

Once the resentments of the current old guard have passed and 

democratic governance can be established, U.S.-Zimbabwe relations 

can become what they have never been, harmonious and mutually 

beneficial. 

I would like to yield to my colleague, Ms. Bass, for any opening 

comments. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing will allow us to explore important issues that affect 

our relations with Zimbabwe, including governance and accountability, economic development, and press freedoms and human 

rights. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses for participating in this hearing, including Dr. Smith from the U.S. State Department and representatives from civil organizations focusing on the issues of labor, 

trade, and human rights. 

I look forward to hearing your perspectives on developments in 

Zimbabwe and the country’s relationship with us. I also hope to 

hear from witnesses as to how the U.S. is currently working with 

either nongovernmental organizations or Zimbabwe civil society 

groups to support transparency and accountability in governance, 

increase political space, and improve economic environment. 

At the beginning of his tenure, sadly, I mean, Mugabe was 

praised by many as a force for liberating the Zimbabwean people. 

4

Obviously, the current government has been marked by challenges 

in suppression of voices, a restrictive electoral process, and a lack 

of transparency in national elections. 

With little opposition, the current administration, as well as the 

country’s Parliament, is overwhelmingly comprised of members of 

Mugabe’s political party, making voices of dissent hard-pressed to 

have their perspectives and grievances heard. 

With President Mugabe as chair of both the Southern African 

Development Community and the African Union, which, obviously, 

are key regional bodies for both economic development and governance, I would like to hear from today’s witnesses what they think 

the effect of his leadership will be on both bodies, particularly with 

so many elections happening on the continent in the next couple 

of years. 

And in terms of U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 sets out a range of 

targeted economic sanctions and restrictions on certain types of aid 

to the region. Zimbabwe is also currently ineligible for trade benefits under other U.S. initiatives. I would like to know from the witnesses what you feel the impact of those policies have been. 

In closing, I would like to recognize and thank our witnesses 

once again. And I hope to explore the most effective approaches to 

ensure that we improve U.S.-Zimbabwe relations through supporting its citizens’ efforts for increased democratic governance and 

economic opportunity. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Bass, thank you so very much. 

We are very privileged to welcome a new member of the subcommittee and a new number of Congress, Congressman Daniel 

Donovan. Just a brief bio on Dan. 

He was elected in New York, represents the 11th Congressional 

District, which encompasses all of Staten Island and southern 

Brooklyn. Congressman Donovan was elected on May 5 and sworn 

in on May 13. 

A native Staten Islander, Congressman Donovan has dedicated 

his life to serving the people of New York. He began his career as 

a prosecutor, serving 8 years under Manhattan District Attorney 

Robert Morgenthau. 

Congressman Donovan began serving his native Staten Island in 

1996 as chief of staff to then-Borough President Guy Molinari. 

I would note, parenthetically, that Guy Molinari and I got elected 

to Congress in 1980 when Ronald Reagan got elected. So Guy is an 

old friend, a good friend, but he served as his chief of staff. 

In January 2002, he was appointed Deputy Borough President 

under Borough President James Molinaro. In November 2003, Congressman Donovan was elected Richmond County District Attorney, where he remained in that office for over a decade. He is a 

member of Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committees and 

now a new member of our subcommittee. 

And welcome, Congressman Donovan. I yield to you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you very much, Chair. 

Thank you, Ms. Bass, for your welcoming. 

Being a Member of Congress for 3 weeks and this being my first 

subcommittee meeting, I look forward to hearing from all witnesses. Thank you. 

5

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, my friend 

Dan. 

We now would like to welcome Dr. Shannon Smith, who was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs in May 2013. Prior to joining the State Department, she 

served as senior policy adviser for Africa and Global Health for the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2007 to 2013. 

As a senior staffer for Africa, she traveled widely on the continent, leading staff delegations and accompanying the chairman 

on numerous trips to Sudan and South Sudan, during the process 

leading up to the 2011 referendum on independence. Prior to her 

work in the policy area, Dr. Smith was a history professor. 

And I yield such time as you may consume. 

STATEMENT OF SHANNON SMITH, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass. 

And welcome, Congressman Donovan. 

Thank you for holding this hearing on Zimbabwe and for inviting 

me to testify before you. We appreciate the deep interest of this 

subcommittee and are pleased to work with Congress in support of 

our national interests in Zimbabwe and in the region. 

Last month, traveling with my counterpart from the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, I went to Zimbabwe to engage in a series of meetings with our Embassy, the government, opposition members, and civil society. The purposes of the trip were 

to reaffirm U.S. messages of support for the people of Zimbabwe, 

to communicate our hopes for democratic reforms and economic development, and to better understand the situation on the ground. 

Fundamentally, Zimbabwe remains trapped in a moment of time 

that has been unfolding for decades. President Robert Mugabe 

maintains his hold on power, as you noted, as a result of the 2013 

elections that were neither free nor fair. The country’s economy is 

failing, driven down not by international sanctions, but by national 

policies and rampant unemployment. Once a breadbasket for the 

region, it faces major food security challenges in the months to 

come. 

Political rights remain curtailed. Outright violence has declined 

compared to previous years, but prominent examples such as the 

disappearance of activist Itai Dzamara reminds Zimbabweans that 

their safety is elusive. Both the ruling party and the opposition appear to be fragmenting, adding to an environment of uncertainty 

and, therefore, unease. 

Against this backdrop U.S. interests in Zimbabwe remain the 

same, a peaceful democratic and prosperous country that provides 

for its people and contributes to regional stability. To realize our 

interests, we strongly believe in engagement with government and 

nongovernment alike, to promote our values, and work together in 

areas of common concern. We view this ongoing dialogue as part 

of building the bilateral relationship. 

Current circumstances do not merit a change in our policy, but 

we remain hopeful that in the future they will. We strive to balance our targeted sanctions on those who have impinged upon 

6

human rights and the rule of law with our encouragement of economic reforms and investment. 

We stand by the commitments we made to the people of 

Zimbabwe at their independence in 1980 to work together to promote democratic institutions, equitable economic growth, public 

health, and food security. To this end, the United States has provided over $2.6 billion in development and humanitarian assistance 

to Zimbabwe since its independence. 

Zimbabwe’s economy, as I noted, is failing. While the country 

made headway in curbing hyperinflation during the period of the 

government of national unity between 2008 and 2013, today the 

economy is again in desperate straits. The civil service wage bill 

alone eats up an unsustainable 80 percent of total expenditures, 

leaving very little in the government to run operations or support 

investments in the country’s degrading infrastructure. 

The formal economy has shrunk to a small fraction of 

Zimbabwe’s citizens. Unemployment estimates range as high as 80 

percent or even higher. To add to the country’s woes, poor rains, 

building on disastrous agricultural policies in past years, are projected to leave millions of Zimbabweans facing food insecurity. The 

Government of Zimbabwe continues to blame U.S. targeted sanctions for its economic hardships. But, in reality, these bleak conditions were created by the government itself. 

The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index rates Zimbabwe 

as 171st out of 189 countries in the world. Transparency International also places them in the bottom 20 in its Corruption Perceptions Index. Other barriers to international investment include 

a lack of clarity about indigenization policies, failures to safeguard 

property rights, and the uneven application of the rule of law. 

Political developments and uncertainties are exacerbating economic problems and vice versa. Internal struggles over possible 

succession within ZANU–PF, the ruling party, continue to dominate political discourse and impede hopes for reform. 

In December 2014, President Mugabe dismissed one of his Vice 

Presidents, Joice Mujuru, who had long been thought to be a possible favorite to succeed him. This was followed by a series of cabinet shuffles and party expulsions of her perceived supporters. 

Within the party, factions are forming as potential successors vie 

for positions of power. In the meantime, at age 91, President 

Mugabe remains firmly in charge, and there are no indications he 

plans to step down. 

Zimbabwe’s opposition has failed to capitalize on these fissures 

in ZANU–PF and unite behind a common vision. The opposition 

has become increasingly splintered itself with new breakaway parties forming under other leadership. 

This political fracturing underscores the importance of the 

United States standing firmly on democratic principles, rule of law 

and human rights, and encouraging the government and opposition 

alike to make progress in those areas. 

The United States places the protection of human rights at the 

center of our foreign policy and has longstanding concerns about 

violations of human rights, including intimidation, harassment, 

and torture. 

7

The United States remains gravely concerned about reports of 

the forced disappearance of Zimbabwe and civil society activist Itai 

Dzamara on March 9. To date, his whereabouts and his well-being 

remain unknown. 

Mr. Dzamara gained notoriety after he presented a letter to the 

Office of the President and Cabinet in 2014, demanding that President Mugabe step down for failing the Zimbabwean people. 

During our recent visit to Zimbabwe, my colleague and I raised 

this case with the government and in virtually every public and 

private meeting. The United States stands with Mr. Dzamara and 

the people of Zimbabwe in defending the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 

And for all its challenges—and their numbers are legion—I was 

struck on this trip once again by the resilience and tremendous capacity of the Zimbabwean people. As one gentleman told me, there 

is nothing in his country that is not fixable. The United States 

shares that conviction and that hope. 

When I was in Harare last month, several people asked me as 

well if Americans still cared about what was happening in their 

country. Hearings such as this are, in fact, proof that we do. So 

thank you for providing me this opportunity to speak with your 

subcommittee today. Thank you for holding this hearing. And I 

welcome any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]

8


94836a-1.eps
9


94836a-2.eps
10


94836a-3.eps
11

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Smith, thank you so very much, 

and thanks for underscoring the fact that the people are not only 

resilient, but they have hope. And I think the more we can build 

on that hope and do whatever tangibly we can do to assist so there 

is a matriculation from the current crisis to a better day, the better. 

And along those lines, I am very concerned, and maybe you can 

elaborate on that, having just been there and seen on the ground 

what is happening. 

I will never forget, you know, when Andrew Natsios was head of 

USAID and he worked for years in the emergency response area—

made the point—and you said it again when you said how 

Zimbabwe was a breadbasket—he, too, was beside himself that the 

early warning indicators are that a famine was in the offing and 

that starvation and malnutrition was about to go from bad to 

worse. 

And I am wondering if you can give any insights as to the state 

of play right now. Because we know there are some concerns about 

food insecurity in Zimbabwe. And what is projected for the next 6 

months or so with regards to that situation? 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes. As Mr. Natsios had noted, and as we continue to note, this 

is a really productive, fertile country, but it is not one with effective production. Its policies have made that certain. 

Last year they enjoyed really good rains and they had pretty 

good harvests. This year that has not been the case. And so the 

forecasts for maize, in particular, are pretty grim, and there are potentially millions of people in Zimbabwe who may be in need of 

food assistance. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Are there contingency plans underway, USAID, from a disaster——

Ms. SMITH. There are. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [continuing]. Assistance point of 

view? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And has the early-warning mechanism worked in terms of forecasting what might be needed and 

when? 

Ms. SMITH. I think it has. And I think that they are forecasting 

what is described as crisis or stage 3 of 5 levels of food insecurity. 

So it is a situation in which the international community does 

have time to respond. And some of the neighboring countries and 

others can look for support there, but it is very much on our minds. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Now, are we ready, notwithstanding 

sanctions—because, obviously, humanitarian trumps sanctions, 

particularly targeted sanctions. Are we ready? Do we have sufficient sources to meet that need, working in concert with our international partners? 

Ms. SMITH. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If you could get back, you know, for 

the record with, you know, an analysis of what it looks like, you 

know, just so that we are helpful, too, on the congressional side, 

you know, to make sure that we don’t get a de ́ja` vu with people 

suffering from that malnutrition. 

12

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM SHANNON SMITH, PH.D., TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, if I could, about 

when on September 12, 2013, you testified—and Ms. Bass and I 

were very happy to welcome you then when you provided expert 

testimony—you made a point that we will not be swayed by the attempts of President Mugabe and his party to blame Zimbabwe’s 

economic misfortunes and disastrous economic mismanagement on 

the United States and other countries’ governments that maintain 

targeted sanctions on select groups of individuals and entities. 

Is that still the case, there is a blame game going on? 

And, most importantly, if you could, just for the record again outline those sanctions. What is in place? How targeted are they? And 

did you hear appeals to change those sanctions when you were 

there? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, sir. We did. And our policy does remain largely 

the same. We have sanctions on fewer than 200 individuals or entities, approximately 106 individuals and 70 entities, and they are 

intended to be targeted. They are aimed at individuals who have 

disrupted democracy or engaged in corruption and other acts. 

The Department of Treasury, the OFAC office, evaluates those 

situations. The list of individuals itself is considered to be a living, 

breathing list. We want to examine it periodically. We want to 

make sure that it is still valid and that if there are people who 

should be removed or entities or added to it, that is part of the 

process. But, more fundamentally, it remains the strongest statement, I think, of American values. 

Does the Zimbabwe Government continue to blame their woes on 

it? Absolutely. They attempt to use it as a propaganda tool. And 

we discussed these questions with a number of people in 

Zimbabwe, from the business community to civil society, including 

human rights activists, and opinion in Zimbabwe is divided, there 

is no question. Even among the human rights community, there 

are some who argue that, ‘‘Well, it is a propaganda tool for the government. So you should consider it.’’

I think, in our mind, the government’s attempts to use it as a 

propaganda tool don’t change the fundamental reasons for which 

sanctions were imposed. And so then it becomes incumbent on us 

to offer a counterargument, which we have done. There is no better 

representative of these values and of the American desire to see 

the other almost 14 million people in Zimbabwe prosper than our 


94836d.eps
13

Ambassador, Bruce Wharton, who does everything he can to promote economic growth outside of that small section of targeted 

sanctions. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Smith, in your testimony, you 

made a disturbing observation that Zimbabwe’s opposition has 

failed to capitalize on the fissures in the ZANU–PF and unite behind a common vision. The opposition has become increasingly 

splintered. 

One, could you elaborate on that? What does that look like in 

terms of splintering? Is it just a multitude of parties? 

Secondly—and my final question—Imani Countess the African 

Regional Program Director for the Solidarity Center, offers criticism—and I would just like to know what your response is to it—

that U.S. funding for democracy, human rights, and governance 

programs in Africa through the U.S. Agency for International Development has been declining despite extraordinary need, down 40 

percent since 2008. And I am wondering if, you know, you can provide some insight into that criticism. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Yes. On the question of the opposition, it is a matter of and 

record now that the opposition has been splintering, that the Movement for Democratic Change now has multiple Movements for 

Democratic Change within it under separate leadership. And some 

of that is about differences of opinion, about differences of leadership. But I think that what is happening is that there is no unifying message at the moment that stretches across these parties. 

Certainly young people told us that they were looking for a more 

unifying message across the opposition and for a vision of where 

someone would take their country beyond the partisan questions 

themselves. Those are differences that are going to play out and 

that is up to the people of Zimbabwe and their leaders on how that 

goes. 

So I think that, for us, it is most important to continue to talk 

about the broader issues of reform and to continue to support reformers. And the political parties will evolve as they evolve, and we 

hope that, through that process, they come forward with a real vision for where they want to take their country. 

Democracy and governance remains a top priority for our Government clearly in Africa and elsewhere. We all know it is a difficult budget environment, and we are all looking for ways to do 

more. In Zimbabwe, we have exercised democracy and governance 

programs through examples such as voter education during a constitutional process so that people in Zimbabwe understood, as the 

constitution was being drafted and voted on, what that meant for 

their country. 

Other examples of what we are doing with the money that we 

do have are, for example, connecting women in agriculture with 

Members of Parliament so that they hear their voices and that they 

understand that, trying to support civil society in a variety of ways, 

trying to make sure that those human rights actors have a place 

to be heard. And so, in spite of a difficult budget environment, we 

are going to continue to try and do that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ranking Member Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

14

Just following up on that, I am wondering if there is going to be 

any reorganization. I mean, I know that there were a lot of initiatives at USAID, and I know there is a change in leadership now. 

And I didn’t know if funds were being reconsidered to increase in 

the democracy and governance area. 

Ms. SMITH. I think I would have to leave that to my colleagues 

from USAID, but I can ask them to get back to you on that. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. You mentioned sanctions and you mentioned 

the list being fluid. And I was wondering, number one, if there are 

sanctions against the Vice President and if you could speak a little 

bit about it. 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. The First Vice President is a sanctioned individual. In general, we prefer to talk about sanctions in a broader 

way than to dwell on the individuals themselves. 

But they are based on past acts. And along with the other individuals who are on that list, we continue to maintain. 

Ms. BASS. Well, I really would like to understand how that 

works. I mean, I know, in theory, there is a sanction against an 

individual. I don’t really know what that means. He is not coming 

to the U.S. So what exactly does that mean? How do you have 

sanctions against an individual in Zimbabwe? 

Ms. SMITH. Sanctions can take different forms. They can take, for 

example, travel bans. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ms. SMITH. They can take prohibitions on American enterprise, 

American businesses or banks doing business with that individual. 

Ms. BASS. But how does that really have—I mean, just taking 

one of the individuals, how does that have an impact if they are 

not coming to the U.S. and they don’t do business? He is the Vice 

President, for example. So how is that meaningful? 

Ms. SMITH. I think the degree to which the government protests 

the sanctions and the degree to which, in meetings with us and 

others, that they argue that they should be lifted speaks to their 

effect. 

Ms. BASS. Yeah. Well, but, as you mentioned, there is a lot of different types of sanctions. I understand the economic sanctions. I 

understand that. And I am sure they are protesting all of the sanctions because everybody does. 

But I am just wondering how that actually has an effect. So it 

is more a political effect than symbolic as opposed to it really hitting them the individual sanctions? 

Ms. SMITH. I mean, in our case, these are bilateral sanctions. So 

they are not global in scope. They can be active in other economic 

affairs. 

But I think they do have an economic effect. They certainly have 

a political effect. And they have a branding effect. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. In recent years, Zimbabwe has strengthened 

trade and military ties with China, including the construction of a 

Chinese military base in eastern Zimbabwe. 

If you could, speak to that. I think there are obviously security 

implications for the U.S., for a military alliance between the two 

countries. But what do we know about that development? 

15

Ms. SMITH. I think the countries clearly enjoy a close relationship. China is active in much of Africa, as you have seen in many 

places, I know. 

Ms. BASS. We often talk about it economically, but not militarily. 

Ms. SMITH. And in a country which is suffering from so much 

poverty, military expenditures in those ways are difficult, it seems 

to me, to justify. 

I think that the Chinese Government, too, is looking at 

Zimbabwe and certainly on the economic front, asking some hard 

questions about investing in that country and providing other 

forms of assistance. 

Ms. BASS. They are asking hard. What does that mean? 

Ms. SMITH. I think that, like everyone else, they want to know 

where, for example, Zimbabwe’s indigenization laws are going to 

take them——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ms. SMITH [continuing]. In terms of investment. 

And I think that, as long as that uncertainty prevails, I think 

even from countries from China, which they have enjoyed a relationship over the years—I think they will find it increasingly difficult to do business. 

Ms. BASS. Could you speak to what their current investments are 

in Zimbabwe, the Chinese? I mean, I am going to ask you some 

more about the military base in a minute, but——

Ms. SMITH. I don’t have dollar figures on them precisely. 

Ms. BASS. No. Not the dollar figures. What sectors they are particularly active in. 

Ms. SMITH. I think mining in particular. As the chairman noted 

in his opening statement, it is the biggest business there, and mineral resources and other resources, other extractive industries. 

Ms. BASS. Are they employing Zimbabweans on the military 

base? 

Ms. SMITH. I couldn’t tell you that. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. I mean, you know, one of the characteristics of 

some Chinese investment is they go over and build roads and build 

other things, but they employ Chinese, not necessarily folks from 

the country. 

Okay. I yield, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When you speak to the citizens of Zimbabwe, do they know of our 

support? Do they know that the United States supports them? 

Ms. SMITH. I think some do and some don’t. If they only listen 

to the government in Zimbabwe, they would not know. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. But when you go there and your colleagues 

go there, they are aware that we support them? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. And I think there is a lot of appreciation. There 

was enormous warmth that I found toward the United States in 

Zimbabwe. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I thought I heard in your opening statement that 

we have given—I think it was $8 billion in aid. Was that a correct 

figure? Or something around that figure. 

16

Does that aid get to the people who need it or does their country 

withhold that from the people who are in need? 

Ms. SMITH. No. In fact, we very much direct that aid. It is $2.6 

billion since their independence in 1980. Of that, last year we provided about $175 million in aid. About two-thirds of that was for 

health assistance, much of that for HIV/AIDS, also to fight malaria 

and tuberculosis. 

We work through civil society, through nongovernmental organizations, faith-based organizations. Those are our partners who help 

deliver that assistance. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And that gets to the citizens who are in need. 

Ms. SMITH. It does. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Wonderful. 

Ms. SMITH. I think we have saved hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of lives over the years. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Wonderful. Wonderful. 

Are there other things that we should be doing? 

Ms. SMITH. I think it is important that we keep the lines of communication open. I think that we want to maintain a respectful 

dialogue, and I think that that is one way that we underscore the 

importance of our message. 

It is also important that we continue to provide the kind of support we have and the kind of platform for people who are brave 

enough to speak up in Zimbabwe to help provide the opportunity 

for them to do so. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And your direct support gives us credibility with 

the people there? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. All right. Wonderful. 

And my last question: Do our allies assist us at all? Are they assisting the people who are in need in Zimbabwe? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. There are a number of countries that are active 

and providing assistance, sir. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Wonderful. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. Clawson. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thanks for coming. 

So when I think of Zimbabwe—and I have been to Zimbabwe—

I kind of think of opportunity lost. And if I went back to the 1980s 

or 1990s and I thought of Mugabe and the leadership and would 

have guessed that we would be where we are today, who would 

have sensed that. Right? 

And so my own thinking and feeling about the country evolves 

over time, and I am now to the point where I say to myself: Until 

we have new leadership at the top of the country, why would we 

do anything besides humanitarian? Am I wrong about that? 

And I am not saying we are doing a lot besides humanitarian. 

But, you know, it feels like not a good—with that leadership, it 

feels like a place to do the right thing for the people and the humanitarian aspects of it. But, beyond that, pretty hopeless in terms 

of using our money and resources. Am I right about that? 

Ms. SMITH. Well, our policy for a number of years now has been 

essentially characterized as humanitarian plus, so strict, clear lifesaving aid, assistance, such as antiretrovirals for people with 

17

HIV/AIDS or food assistance for someone who is dying or faces 

starvation. 

But at the same time we are also providing some assistance in 

areas such as trying to create conditions for food security, so promoting some better agricultural practices for small landholders in 

rural Zimbabwe. I think that is still worth doing. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Do you? 

Ms. SMITH. I do. Because, if we don’t do it, their government isn’t 

going to do it, and no one will. And I think the other thing we are 

doing is we are laying the foundation for the future and for what 

comes next in Zimbabwe. 

It is a country that could be exporting food. It is a country that 

could be a source of larger stability in the region. And I think we 

want to prepare for that day. 

Mr. CLAWSON. And so, in preparing for that day, it also feels like, 

to me, that, if I was a typical citizen in Zimbabwe, I wouldn’t really 

much believe in free markets and capitalism or anything else because a small amount of people keep everything. And so, no matter 

how hard I work, I don’t get a lot to eat and I get sick. Am I wrong 

about that? 

Ms. SMITH. They are really an impressive collection of people, 

and it is a very entrepreneurial society. It is a country in which, 

sadly, one of the main forms of economic activity right now is people who are street vendors with almost nothing, trying desperately 

to make a living. 

Mr. CLAWSON. But what percentage of the wealth is kept by just 

a small amount of the ruling oligopoly, if you will? 

Ms. SMITH. An enormous percentage. But to give you an example, the Young African Leaders Initiative has an entrepreneur segment to it where about a third of the people who come as part of 

the Mandela fellows, come to Washington and to American universities for a number of months. 

Zimbabweans participate in that program and they do so with 

enormous energy and enthusiasm. And they are people who are 

not—essentially, in spite of all the difficulties of doing business—

and they are pretty frank about that—they are not really looking 

at things through a political lens. They are looking through an economic lens and still seeing their country as a place of opportunity. 

It is a country that still very much values education. It formerly 

had probably the highest levels of literacy on the continent, and 

they are still quite high. People still really sacrifice to send their 

kids to school, and they do it because they see it as investing in 

their future. So they haven’t given up on that. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Can I have one more question? Is that okay? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Sure. 

Mr. CLAWSON. And what are the conditions of the—I mean, a 

revenue producer for this country was always the natural resources 

and the wildlife and so forth. I have read things in the last several 

years that leave me a little depressed. 

How would you characterize the state of the wildlife and the possibility for tourism coming back, et cetera? 

Ms. SMITH. Both depressing and still there. That——

Mr. CLAWSON. So not done yet? 

Ms. SMITH. Not done yet. And Americans are——

18

Mr. CLAWSON. Still hope? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, sir. Americans are still the largest single group 

of tourists from outside of Africa who go to Zimbabwe. Victoria 

Falls is still an amazing site. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Victoria Falls. Yeah. 

Ms. SMITH. There are park rangers in Zimbabwe whom I have 

met who are working desperately to try and preserve the rhinoceros and elephant populations, but they are doing it against long 

odds. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Well, for me and my part, I mean, I appreciate 

what you all are doing in terms of HIV control and any kind of 

healthcare assistance because I think it is a wonderful people and 

a wonderful place and I think they deserve it. 

I think they deserve a better ruling class and a better government so all people can participate in the fruits of what free markets ought to do, which is reward those that work hard and are 

smart about what they do as opposed to those that were born right. 

And so, until we have leadership that provides an equality of opportunity, I am not real interested in us spending too much time 

other than the humanitarian aspects as you describe. 

Yield back. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Clawson. 

Let me just ask a few final questions, if I could. 

First, Ben Freeth of the Mike Campbell Foundation, the executive director, makes a number of very compelling points in his testimony, including the Look East policy, the Chinese and Russian 

influence, the power of Robert Mugabe as President. And he is currently the Chairman of the African Union, as we know, and the 

Southern African Development Community, and, as he points out, 

he wields considerable power and influence on the continent. 

My question is: Your assessment of Mugabe’s tenure as chairman, especially of the African Union and the Look East policy. I 

mean, we know that the Chinese Government doesn’t give one whit 

whether or not human rights are followed because they break 

human rights policies with impunity and violate people’s rights like 

no one else in the world. So they certainly are enablers there, but 

their Russian influence as well. 

And then he also makes the point that I have known about, but 

it brings it to focus again, and that is, Mengistu, you know, who 

obviously sought refuge there, as a confidant and close adviser. 

And, you know, soon after the devastation of thousands of homes 

by Mugabe, Greg Simpkins went and spent a week in Zimbabwe, 

observing this wanton destruction of housing, and it was reminiscent of what Mengistu did when he used food as a weapon and 

used a scorched earth policy. And one always wondered whether or 

not Mugabe was following his advisers’ advice on that. 

And Mengistu obviously is directly responsible for this slaughter 

of so many Africans, again, using food as a weapon. And those socalled famines were largely manmade, yes, exacerbated by nature, 

but manmade because he inhibited the ability to feed people, and 

he even charged huge fees when international donors provided 

foodstuffs before they even got to their intended beneficiary. 

Can you speak to that, Look East, Russia, China, chairman of African Union, and then Mengistu connection. 

19

Ms. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, certainly the government is looking 

east explicitly, openly. I am not sure the people of Zimbabwe are 

looking east with the same enthusiasm and——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Is the opposition? 

Ms. SMITH. They have been pretty critical of that. As I said, the 

opposition has a number of faces now. Now I can’t say that—you 

know, if given the opportunity, some would and some would not, 

probably. But I think that, particularly from the opposition, there 

is a much stronger look West viewpoint on the whole. 

And, on the other hand, I am not sure that it is, as I said earlier, 

I am not sure it is a zero-sum game that we are playing there, that 

regardless of the government’s choices, we are going to hold fast to 

our values. And I think that a number of people in Zimbabwe 

would much prefer to do business with America, for example, than 

with China, and we very much hope that they have that opportunity. 

Questions of the African Union. Yes. They elected President 

Mugabe as their chair. And, obviously, that is the choice of the 

members themselves. On an operational level, it has not particularly affected our ability to work with the African Union. 

And, as an example, I would cite our cooperation in fighting 

Ebola in west Africa. The African Union played a really critical role 

in that, in providing personnel in an unprecedented way. 

And because we work through our Ambassador to the AU and 

others within the Secretariat and the more operational aspects of 

the African Union, it has not inhibited our ability to do that and 

we——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. But our assessment of his tenure in 

office? 

Ms. SMITH. Clearly, the rhetoric has changed. And there are a 

number of elections coming up. And so, obviously that is very much 

on people’s minds. 

But we have not seen a profound shift in the policies. And, as 

I said, we can still find important areas to cooperate with the AU 

as a whole and will continue to do so. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Is there anything that we disagreed 

with him in terms of his leadership initiatives? 

Ms. SMITH. I think certainly we would agree with many of the 

statements he has made, and he continues to blame the west almost exclusively for, you know, any, probably, problem you can 

name on the continent. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Even as chairman? Not as President 

of Zimbabwe, but as chairman? 

Ms. SMITH. In terms of speeches, yes. But in terms of concrete 

policies and the work the AU does across the continent, we have 

not seen major shifts on that. 

And it is a member organization. I think, you know, that the 

members very much care about the direction of the organization as 

a whole. 

And on the issues of the——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mengistu? 

Ms. SMITH. You know, that is a classic example of the sort of 

scorched earth policies in the destruction of 2005, and what you see 

20

today is a quieter pernicious oppression. You see fewer acts of overt 

violence and destruction than you did. 

But the phrase that you often hear is the ‘‘harvest of fear,’’ the 

idea that past violence continues to cast a shadow over people and 

that you are going to spend a lot of time looking over your shoulder 

in Zimbabwe if you dare to speak up. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Thank you very much, 

Dr. Smith. 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

I would like to now welcome our second panel, beginning with 

Mr. Ben Freeth, Executive Director of the Mike Campbell Foundation. He is from a farming area in central Zimbabwe and was appointed the first regional executive officer for the Commercial 

Farmers Union in 1996. 

In 2007, Mr. Freeth and his late father-in-law, Mike Campbell, 

lodged complaints against President Mugabe’s Government in the 

Southern African Development Community’s tribunal for attempting to unlawfully seize their farm, for violating the SADC treaty 

by denying access to the courts,and for engaging in racial discrimination and violence against White commercial farmers and their 

farm workers. Mr. Freeth’s main focus is on restoring justice, the 

rule of law, and human rights in Zimbabwe. 

We will then hear from Ms. Imani Countess, who is the Africa 

Regional Program Director for the American Center for International Labor Solidarity for the AFL/CIO. She is responsible for 

the overall programmatic and financial management of the program, which includes activities in 15 African countries. 

Prior to this position, she served as the Zimbabwe country director for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs 

with the responsibility for program development, oversight, and implementation of democracy strengthening programs, donor relations, and representation. 

Ms. Countess has previously held positions with the TransAfrica 

Forum, the American Friends Service Committee, Shared Interests, 

the African Policy Information Center, and U.S. African Development Foundation. 

Mr. Freeth, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BEN FREETH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MIKE CAMPBELL FOUNDATION 

Mr. FREETH. Thank you very much. 

It is a great honor to be here. I just got in from Harare a couple 

of days ago. And I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to put across some of the things that we are experiencing 

in Zimbabwe at the moment. 

I want to start off with a couple of pretty shocking quotes: ‘‘The 

only language a Black man will understand is the language of the 

gun. The more you kill, the closer you get to your objective.’’ Second 

quote: ‘‘Our party must continue to strike fear into the heart of the 

Black man. They must tremble.’’ And the third quote: ‘‘I am the 

Hitler of the times.’’

Imagine a President from the United States of America saying 

such a thing. These are exact quotes from our President, except you 

21

have to substitute the word ‘‘Black’’ for ‘‘White.’’ ‘‘Whites are not 

human beings,’’ said our late Vice President. 

So I want to talk today a little bit about this issue that we, as 

White people in Zimbabwe, face because it is an issue that is very 

real, is very immediate to us, and has affected, obviously, not just 

us, but has affected a very large proportion of the population of our 

country. 

We have gone through a period with the fastest shrinking economy in world history, in recorded history, in a peacetime situation. 

We have at this stage got a situation where there is 85-percentplus unemployment and where for the last 14 years we have needed food aid every single year. We have got a situation where 25 

percent of the Zimbabwean population has left our country. 

So I want to look at the two tools by which Mugabe has clung 

to power for all these years, 35 years now. And the two tools that 

he has used very effectively are race and land. And, like Hitler, he 

blames all the problems on a particular race, the White people in 

this case, and then he violently takes the land. 

And we have seen how the ruling party has been rewarded with 

the land, the elite, and how the 2 million farm workers and their 

families—and millions of others in Zimbabwe—have suffered directly as a result and have become very poor, very fearful, very dependent on international food aid in order to be able to survive. 

So on the farms themselves, we are at a stage now where 95 percent of White farmers have been driven off the land in the last 15 

years. And those that are still on the land, they face 2 years in jail 

for committing the crime of farming and living in their own homes 

in a country that is starving. And I have got many friends right 

now who are going through court cases for this ‘‘criminal’’ act of 

farming in our country. 

As you rightly said, Chairman, my father-in-law took our President to court on this issue of racism on the land and he got a final 

and binding judgment from the SADC Tribunal, the regional court 

that did cover 1⁄4 billion people in southern Africa—which said that 

racial discrimination is taking place in Zimbabwe and that racial 

discrimination must stop. 

So later, when the Zimbabwe Government ignored that judgment 

and was found in contempt of that court on three different occasions, we finally have a situation where our President manages to 

get that whole court closed down. 

So the 1⁄4 billion people in southern Africa cannot approach a 

court of last resort when their justice systems fail them. So a lot 

of people are being affected by what is going on here. 

One of the things that our President did sign up to in 1991 was 

the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of 

All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Unfortunately, what we need 

is a state which is also a signatory—and most of the states around 

the world are signatories to that international convention—to make 

a complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the United Nations so that that committee can then 

go and investigate. 

And what we saw in Operation Murambatsvina, where those 

700,000 homes were destroyed by the state bulldozers, was the 

22

United Nations did come in and, within a very short period, that 

whole exercise was actually stopped. 

Last month, our President said to the 15 states in southern Africa, ‘‘I give poison not for you to swallow, but to give to someone 

else.’’ And he went on, ‘‘The wrath of South Africans needs to be 

more directed toward the Whites.’’ So we see this racial poison 

being spread through the region. 

And, interestingly, I was with the European Union senior diplomat about 3 weeks ago, and I asked him to come along to a commercial farm where there were 300 families that were going to be 

losing their livelihoods. 

And I said, ‘‘You need to come and witness it because no one 

from the Embassies in Harare wants to actually come out to witness these things that are going on time after time, year after year, 

month after month, day after day, on the farms.’’

This farmer is just on 40 hectares that they have got left, but 

there are 300 families that derive their livelihoods from it. 

And the senior diplomat said, ‘‘Is it a Black-owned farm or a 

White-owned farm?’’

And I said, ‘‘It is a White-owned farm.’’

And he said, ‘‘Find me a Black-owned farm where this is happening and I will come out.’’

In the United States, I have been very impressed by the moral 

manner in which Americans like to deal with immoral situations, 

and we all admire Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. 

I believe that it is time that the United States made a complaint 

to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and 

asked for an investigation because I believe very sincerely that silence is the sound either of tacit approval or of cowardliness, and 

neither of those things are what I believe the United States believes in. 

So I am here as a witness. You have seen my paper, which 

brings into account all the various things that have been happening over recent years. But that, I believe, is something tacit, 

something that the United States can actually ask for in order to 

create some sort of accountability within the system. 

I am passionately wanting our country to go forward. We all 

want our country to go forward. But at the moment it cannot go 

forward so long as the system of racism is allowed to thrive because our President is able to do it without any censure from the 

rest of the world. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Freeth. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeth follows:]

23


94836b-1.eps
24


94836b-2.eps
25


94836b-3.eps
26


94836b-4.eps
27


94836b-5.eps
28


94836b-6.eps
29


94836b-7.eps
30


94836b-8.eps
31


94836b-9.eps
32


94836b-10.eps
33


94836b-11.eps
34


94836b-12.eps
35


94836b-13.eps
36

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Countess. 

STATEMENT OF MS. IMANI COUNTESS, REGIONAL PROGRAM 

DIRECTOR FOR AFRICA, THE SOLIDARITY CENTER 

Ms. COUNTESS. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and 

members of the subcommittee, on behalf of The Solidarity Center, 

thank you for the invitation to testify. 

The Solidarity Center is an international NGO that promotes 

and protects worker rights globally, with programs in more than 60 

countries. In Africa, we work with unions, worker associations, research organizations, and community groups in 15 sub-Saharan 

countries, including Zimbabwe, where we have a more than 15-year 

partnership with the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and its 

allied research and worker associations. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s continued interest in 

Zimbabwe, particularly given the deleterious governance, economic, 

and humanitarian situation in the country. Zimbabwe’s economy is 

in deep decline, making it harder for average Zimbabweans to work 

and live and leaving them less and less confident in their future. 

The government consistently fails to address the basic needs of its 

people. 

Most workers earn salaries far below the poverty level. And 

many workers, even in the formal sector, go for months without receiving their wages. Drought in many parts of the country has resulted in severe crop loss, and the 2015 harvest is expected to be 

the worst in 5 years, exacerbating the struggle to survive in this 

country where nearly three-quarters of the population live below 

the poverty line. 

According to recent data from ZimStat, the number of people in 

informal jobs, unstable, poor-paying, and low-quality work, has 

risen to 95 percent. Especially troubling is the recent finding that 

more than 96 percent of Zimbabwean youth, ages 15 to 24, are in 

informal employment. Essentially, this means that Zimbabwe’s 

army of informal economy workers compromises the main engine of 

economic activity in the country. Yet, government response has 

been steady attempts to raise taxes on informal workers. 

While economic decay has thrust many workers into the informal 

economy, others leave Zimbabwe and become economic migrants, 

where they face xenophobic violence, low pay, high levels of informal work, and poor working conditions. Labor unions and proworker economists in Zimbabwe tell us that, to prevent a fullfledged economic collapse and begin the process of rebuilding, the 

Zimbabwean economy requires serious reforms. 

Forward-looking U.S. policy should seek creative ways to support 

government and civil society actors both in the country and the 

subregion who can advocate for and help implement the structural 

reforms to leverage inclusive and pro-poor growth. Such an approach is key to the country’s ability to arrest economic decline and 

establish a new social contract where stakeholders, including government, labor, and business, place sectarian interests aside and 

focus on the immediate crisis. 

At the same time, informal workers both in Zimbabwe and migrants throughout the region would benefit from programs deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\WORK\_AGH\060315\94836 SHIRL
37

signed to assist with their struggle for economic well-being and dignity as well as their organizing and advocacy activities. 

It is essential that the United States ramp up its support for rule 

of law and democracy programs, including human rights, worker 

rights, and constitutionally based electoral reform and for the 2018 

elections, in order to ensure that members of the country’s community-based mass organizations are fully prepared to engage as informed voters, election monitors, and civic educators. 

It is significant to note here that U.S. funding for democracy, 

human rights, and governance programs in Africa through the 

USAID has been declining despite extraordinary need, down 40 

percent since 2008. Entire missions in Africa have no DRG funding. 

Funding for Zimbabwe is inadequate to the challenge. 

Another important component of U.S. foreign policy toward 

Zimbabwe has been support for communities struck by natural disaster, disease, and hunger. For more than a decade, the U.S. has 

been a leader in humanitarian support, and that should continue. 

It is also timely to begin to explore and put in place policies that 

are more directly framed not only by Zimbabwe’s special circumstances, but, also, by the strategies required by Africa as a 

whole. 

While Zimbabwe faces a unique set of governance challenges, the 

country, like the rest of Africa, requires coherent and comprehensive policies that will ultimately lead to inclusive and sustainable 

economic development, respect for human rights, and gender equality. 

Across the continent, nations have at least rhetorical consensus 

on the criticality of industrialization and the need to create coherent national, regional, and continental industrial policy frameworks. 

The first challenge of U.S. policy is to ensure that it is working 

in concert with these broader frameworks, which are geared toward 

creating economic development that is inclusive, sustainable, and 

a generator of decent jobs. 

In a country that seems to be on the brink of economic collapse, 

this recommendation may seem premature. However, through targeted assistance and diplomacy, it may be possible to forge a new 

social contract with actors willing to put aside partisan politics. 

Lastly, while the international community was deeply disappointed in SADC’s unwillingness to be guided by its own internal 

policies during the 2013 elections, it remains an important regional 

body and should be viewed as a central partner of the United 

States as it formulates policy toward Zimbabwe. 

Continued diplomatic efforts, along with support for regional advocates, can exert bottom-up pressures on governments, particularly on issues pertaining to elections, governance, and democratic 

practice. 

Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Ms. Countess. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Countess follows:]

38


94836c-1.eps
39


94836c-2.eps
40


94836c-3.eps
41


94836c-4.eps
42


94836c-5.eps
43

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And just let me ask a couple questions in regards to labor rights in Zimbabwe. 

Are they respected? Are there independent trade unions? Do they 

have influence? 

Ms. COUNTESS. That is three questions. 

Trade unions have influence. Labor rights are, by and large, not 

respected. When you have such a small amount of workers formally 

employed—and we are talking 10 percent to 15 percent of workers 

are employed in the formal economy—and you have a country in 

deep decline, the incentive for companies, for manufacturers, to actually respect labor law is very, very low. 

And what we have seen in those places where collective bargaining agreements do exist, workers do have some legal ability to 

negotiate and hold companies accountable. But, unfortunately, 

what we have seen is that literally every week companies are closing in the country and, as companies close, they totally renege on 

their obligations to those workers, pensions, severance, et cetera. 

They totally renege on those obligations. 

And also what we have seen are more and more examples of 

companies that just are not paying their workers, where, literally, 

you have people going to work every day in the hopes that they 

might get an allowance or, you know, transportation assistance at 

some period in time. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. As Mugabe looks east, as Mr. Freeth 

points out in his testimony, and China increasingly dumps goods 

and manufactures—do you find that that further lowers the standards for laborers? 

Ms. COUNTESS. Absolutely. What our partners have found in 

their assessments of Chinese-owned mines, factories and so forth is 

very low adherence to current labor law, much less international 

standards. Many Chinese mines, for example, are not unionized. 

They do not allow a union presence. And the treatment of workers 

and the working standards are extremely low. 

In terms of the dumping of products, there have been, I would 

say, probably over the past 10 years various campaigns in 

Zimbabwe, citizen-driven campaigns, opposed to the dumping of 

products which are generally of very, very poor quality and relatively expensive, given the quality. There is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the products that are basically forced upon the 

people of the country. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And, finally, does Zimbabwe get a 

bad deal vis-a`-vis China in terms of the precious metals and the 

like that they send to Beijing versus what they get back in terms 

of either barter or money? 

Ms. COUNTESS. We would have to get back to you with specifics 

on that. My impression, based on the information that we have to 

date, is that Zimbabwe has entered into fairly dangerous territory 

in the sense that, in several of the more recent agreements, it has 

essentially used the future, the unknown wealth in the ground, in 

order to access loans from the Chinese Government. 

And so it is putting in place a pretty serious debtor relationship 

when that country is already literally billions of dollars in debt to 

international organizations as well as various countries. 

44

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Freeth, if I could just ask you—

and I would agree with you that, no matter who practices it, racial 

hatred is always deplorable. Whether it be from a Black or a White 

or a White to a Black, it doesn’t matter. All racism is deplorable. 

And I am wondering, do you find any empathy or sympathy from 

the opposition, like MDC–T, Tsvangirai, and others who might 

form a government in the future, who would see that the seizure 

of farmland and farms, as you pointed out—if you could elaborate 

a little bit, you know, the idea of spending 2 years in jail for farming, what is that about? If you stay on your own farm, you can end 

up going to jail? 

And I remember, when the seizures were occurring, Tony Blair 

was absolutely outspoken. I spoke about it as well. I wasn’t the 

only one. But in terms of a complaint, as signatories to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is there a reason why the UK has not brought a complaint itself as signatories as well? But, again, if you could, is the 

opposition at all empathetic to what has been experienced by the 

White farmers? 

Mr. FREETH. On the opposition side, there is obviously sympathy. 

They say that, if they got back into power, they would immediately 

ensure that commercial agriculture could go forward, irrespective 

of whether you are White or Black, and that the laws that in are 

place at the moment would be taken away. 

At the moment we have got a constitution that under section 72 

says that, at a strike of a pen, your property can be taken away 

and, if you then are still on that land, it becomes state land immediately. It doesn’t matter about compensation or anything like that. 

If you are still on that land, you then face 2 years in jail. So the 

law is very much there. 

And the MDC say, yes, they would take those laws away, they 

would ensure that such laws that were struck down by the SADC 

Tribunal are not there any longer. You know, there is no constitution in the world that actually allows for such draconian measures 

against property rights. 

As far as the United Kingdom wanting to make a complaint is 

concerned, I have had discussions with various people in the 

United Kingdom administration. And the feeling is that, because 

they were the colonial power, it is not really for them to do it. 

Mugabe would have a field day with his propaganda if they were 

the ones who made the complaint. 

But a country that has no colonial history, like the United 

States, obviously, it would be a lot easier to be able to do that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Countess, you heard—and I would ask you the same thing, 

Mr. Freeth—the questions I was asking about sanctions of individuals. 

And I was just wondering what you thought of the current U.S. 

policy and its impact, in general, but, also, the sanctioning of individuals. 

Ms. COUNTESS. Based on the feedback that we received from our 

partners, the general U.S. policy to Zimbabwe is appreciated and 

45

respected. As Dr. Smith noted, it has been characterized as humanitarian plus, so a high degree of emphasis on ensuring that people’s 

basic needs are met. 

However, our partners are also very deeply concerned about what 

might be a serious decline in terms of U.S. support for human 

rights and democracy and governance. As I noted in my testimony, 

there has been a significant drop in funding in democracy programs in USAID, a 40-percent drop since 2008. When we look at 

the countries in Africa that have significant democracy and governance funding, we are only looking at three: South Sudan, Nigeria, 

and Liberia. 

So when you look at the human rights and democracy challenges 

facing many countries in Africa, particularly Zimbabwe, this is a 

serious issue. And we appreciate the subcommittee’s openness to 

hearing these concerns and encourage a deeper consideration. 

Ms. BASS. Why do you think that is? I mean, why is our funding—I mean, I am surprised, actually. I didn’t realize it was those 

three countries. And then, on the humanitarian side, does our 

funding get where it is supposed to go? 

Ms. COUNTESS. My understanding, as Dr. Smith said, is that the 

funding, humanitarian aid, does go where it is supposed to. USAID 

is very good at distributing basic foodstuffs. And you can visit rural 

areas, as I have in Zimbabwe, and see the cooking oil cans that say 

‘‘Gift from the U.S.’’

Ms. BASS. I see. 

Ms. COUNTESS. Right? So I think that those resources do get out. 

The decline in DRG support is surprising to us as well. We would 

certainly like to see it increased. 

It is important, we think. Not only does it send a very strong and 

real message of what sort of bucks behind U.S. values and U.S. 

rhetorical support for democracy——

Ms. BASS. That reduction is internal to USAID. Correct? 

Ms. COUNTESS. That is my understanding. 

Ms. BASS. Right. It is not that we have cut the funding? 

Ms. COUNTESS. Correct. That is my understanding. 

Ms. BASS. Or, rather, maybe it is their implementation of how we 

fund it or not. But, anyway, I was trying to get some clarity on 

that. 

I know that in the Zimbabwean Constitution there is supposed 

to be a gender commission. Does one exist? 

Ms. COUNTESS. To my knowledge, a gender commission might 

exist. But I think the next question is: Does it function? 

Ms. BASS. There you go. 

Ms. COUNTESS. And this is part of the problem, I think, facing 

the Zimbabwe Government as a whole. Because the political infighting, both in the ruling party as well as the opposition, has 

been so all-consuming, basic government functions simply have 

been ignored to the detriment of the country, with the biggest problem, obviously, being in the economy. 

However, as I said in my testimony, what our partners say to us 

is that there are individuals, there are Parliamentarians—there is 

a possibility to create a new social contract with those individuals 

that have responsibility for certain portfolios, but who are willing 

46

to look beyond the partisanship, who recognize how deeply in trouble the country is. 

And I think, if we can encourage our policymakers to move beyond our role in any partisanship and to support and promote dialogue, particularly with those institutions that are actually functioning, then maybe we can begin to see at least the framework for 

a different situation in the future. 

Ms. BASS. Would you agree with Dr. Smith that the opposition 

is so fractured that they are ineffective? 

Ms. COUNTESS. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. At this point you don’t see any viable alternative? 

Ms. COUNTESS. At this point I don’t see a viable alternative 

today. But there are discussions going on. Morgan Tsvangirai, for 

example, has been going around the country, engaging in grassroots conversations. 

We don’t know what the future will hold. I know that the MDC 

Renewal has also been split even further. There are individuals 

that are forming new parties. There are rumors that, within 

ZANU, individuals who have been forced out will form a new political party. 

There is a lot of conversation going on and maneuvering behind 

the scenes, and we don’t know. But at this point in time what is 

very, very clear is that no one in power seems to be working on 

behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and certainly not the working 

people. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Freeth, what did you think in terms of current U.S. policy and the sanctions? 

Mr. FREETH. I think it is very important that it is retained. You 

know, the European Union——

Ms. BASS. Retained. 

Mr. FREETH. Retained. Yeah. 

Ms. BASS. I just wondered if it’s effective. 

Mr. FREETH. The European Union has made the experiment of 

trying to re-engage, and they have taken all targeted restrictions 

off against everyone, apart from the President and his wife. 

And, meantime, we have these things like Itai Dzamara disappearing. We have the continued takeover of properties, the retention of draconian laws. There does not seem to be any quid pro quo 

taking place. 

And so, until we see that the European Union actually is having 

success in negotiating a better environment for Zimbabweans, I 

think it is important—just like on the school grounds where there 

is a bully, you have to actually confront that bully and say, ‘‘Listen, 

we can’t accept this.’’

Ms. BASS. Well, just so you know, I was not asking that in terms 

of whether they needed to be lifted. I just wanted to know the impact. 

But I also wanted to follow a little bit the chairman’s questions 

in terms of allies that you have within the opposition. I think we 

have kind of established that the opposition is not that viable of 

an opposition. 

But what about outside of Zimbabwe in terms of other African 

countries? Are there allies? And then, also, outside of Britain, are 

47

there European or other countries that are working with you in 

terms of what you are trying to do? 

Mr. FREETH. Well, obviously, Botswana is a country that is an 

ally in terms of the fact that it has got a very good record. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. FREETH. It is right on our border. And the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, is going to be taking over as Chairman of the 

Southern African Development Community. 

Ms. BASS. Good. 

Mr. FREETH. So we hope that that will create some change in 

terms of the way that the countries around us respond to what is 

going on in Zimbabwe. 

I think the civil society itself is moving very much in the right 

direction. For example, where the SADC Tribunal is concerned, 

there are quite a few different countries taking their governments 

to court on the basis that it was totally unconstitutional what the 

leaders did in destroying this court without any legal or democratic 

process. And so the law societies are taking their governments to 

task. And that is encouraging. You know, that is important. 

We battle. I think there seems to be something about the aura 

of our President that stops people from really wanting to take him 

on in any way. At the age of 91, he is obviously an elder statesman. 

On the African continent, he is currently Chairman of the African 

Union, Chairman of SADC. He has this aura about him that seems 

to be so persuasive in stopping people from confronting the things 

that are wrong, and this is one of our biggest problems in Africa. 

Ms. BASS. One final question is: What would you like to see as 

the solution? Because you made reference—I think you were making reference to the constitution, but it didn’t seem as though you 

have faith, basically, with a new government, that the constitution 

would actually be upheld. What do you see as the ultimate solution? 

Mr. FREETH. Well, the ultimate solution is, obviously, a democratic government coming into being and respecting the rule of law 

and property rights and ensuring that the people’s God-given abilities are able to be realized. But until that happens, I believe that 

we have to use whatever measures we can to put pressure on the 

current regime to ensure that that situation can eventually materialize—and never to lose hope. 

The people of Zimbabwe want something different. They want 

change. They want a democratic force to come into power where 

their God-given potential can be released in the country. We believe very strongly that Zimbabwe can grow very dramatically and 

very quickly when that time comes. But until that time comes, we 

will continue to regress. 

So, in the meantime, I believe strongly that we need to invoke 

the various conventions that our President has actually signed up 

to and put pressure, for example, through the Internaitonal Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 

which is the United Nations convention which the U.S. has signed 

up to and Mugabe has signed up to, in order to create some form 

of accountability. 

This culture of impunity that our ruling elite continue to be able 

to get away with all the time needs to stop eventually, and some 

48

form of accountability is so critical to stop criminals from carrying 

on committing criminal acts. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

I just have two questions. And my 88-year-old mother would be 

very disappointed in the way she raised me if I didn’t ask Ms. 

Countess first. But my question is for both of you. 

For the people that you represent, the workers, what more could 

our country do? And for yourself, for the farmers, what could our 

country do to help you and help those people in need? 

And my second question, follow-up, is: Unless there is a change 

in the regime and the government, will any of those measures that 

you are going to suggest to us—would they be effective unless there 

is a change in government? 

Ms. COUNTESS. In Zimbabwe, we work with, as I mentioned, the 

Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. We also work with an organization called the Zimbabwe Chamber of Informal Economy Associations, ZCIEA. The reason I mention ZCIEA is because it is an association of associations that work with that vast army that I talked 

about, so everyone from the petty traders to women in construction, 

to cross-border traders and market vendors. 

Because even in this very difficult time, people do seek to organize themselves. They do seek to negotiate a better deal with their 

communities, leaders with their municipalities, and so forth. And 

so, as we provide technical assistance, help them build their capacity to carry out their own agendas, not only do they find success, 

but they also develop new confidence and are able then to tackle 

bigger issues. 

So in terms of the answer to your question does any of this work 

really make a difference without a change in government, it absolutely makes a difference, absolutely makes a difference. Because 

the kind of small successes that our trade union partners and our 

informal economy partners find are, for example, in a marketplace, 

negotiating with a community leader to ensure that that marketplace has toilets and access to water. 

In terms of our union partners, the kinds of successes that we 

are talking about are workers getting their fair share, their negotiated rights and benefits within certain circumstances, either in 

terms of a termination or a full-blown retrenchment. We are talking about unions having the ability to carry out their role within 

the tripartite structures of government. 

So unlike other parts of civil society, unions are able to sit with 

government, with business, in various institutions and establish 

things like wages at a sectorial level or a national level, national 

health policy, Social Security and so forth, the extent to which 

through our assistance—and I mean us, the United States—is the 

extent to which we can continue and build upon the work that we 

are already doing. What we do then is to help stem the tide, forestall a full-blown economic collapse, and forestall the decimation of 

all institutions in the country. 

This is critically important. Zimbabwe is in the middle of southern Africa. What do you think will happen if that country imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\WORK\_AGH\060315\94836 SHIRL
49

plodes? What do you think will happen in South Africa, Botswana, 

Mozambique, Namibia, if that country implodes? 

Part of the reason why I think the U.S. has been so quick, for 

example, in 2008, to jump on the cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe 

was because diseases spread. They do not hold to national borders. 

So you really don’t want for a variety of reasons to see that country fall apart. And for us, as trade unionists, we are committed to 

maintaining our partnerships with our brothers and sisters in 

Zimbabwe. 

Mr. CLAWSON. If the gentleman will yield. 

[Audio malfunction in hearing room.] 

Mr. CLAWSON [continuing]. Is why you have a refugee crises in 

other countries——

Ms. COUNTESS. Yes. 

Mr. CLAWSON [continuing]. And the xenophobia and the violence 

directed toward those refugees. But those same very neighbors of 

those countries that you just listed, I have been to all those countries, done business in a lot of those countries. They select this guy 

as their head guy. Europe stays on the sidelines. So, realistically, 

what, you know, what do we do? 

I mean, I am all for humanitarian help. But these same countries 

that you said will be impacted by the implosion are sitting it out 

while White people, Black people, women, men, poor, everybody 

gets hurt by this guy. 

So if what you said is true—and I don’t doubt it—why does everybody sit this one out when this guy needs to go? 

Ms. COUNTESS. Democracy is a funny thing. 

Mr. CLAWSON. You are not calling any of this democracy. Right? 

None of us bet on a union contract or a constitution or any piece 

of paper. Every bet we ever make is on people. 

Ms. COUNTESS. SADC leaders voted on Mugabe. And that is their 

process. That is their decision. It wasn’t the people of southern Africa that made that decision. There was no region-wide vote on who 

would become the head of SADC. Those leaders that represent 

those countries made a decision, and that is their decision. 

Part of the political reality that also has to be factored into U.S. 

policy is that, while we are now talking about Zimbabwe and its 

governance issues, there is a very real fear that some years down 

the line we might be talking about a governance crisis in South Africa, that we might be talking about governance crises in other 

SADC nations. 

And so one of the reasons why many in civil society throughout 

the region have placed such a high degree of emphasis on 

Zimbabwe is because you have to take a stand somewhere. You 

can’t just write one country off of 12 million people. 

Mr. CLAWSON. So why did those leaders of states of those countries vote for this guy? What is the reason for that? Corruption 

likes corruption? What is the reason? 

Ms. COUNTESS. I would say that they have similar interests. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Countess. 

To remind Mr. Freeth, I was just curious about what our country 

could do that we are not doing now to further the rights of the 

farmers in Zimbabwe. 

50

And would your suggestions, the measures that you think the 

United States should be taking that they are not doing now, be effective if the current government was still in place? 

Mr. FREETH. I think the big thing is: How do you create accountability in a country where you go to the police station because 

someone has got a bit of paper and has decided to take over your 

home and take over your livelihood and the police say, ‘‘No. We 

can’t help you because this is political’’? How do you create accountability in that situation where you have an international court 

judgment in your favor—and my father-in-law was actually killed 

in obtaining that court judgment—or as a result of going to court 

against the President and the government just refuses to recognize 

that judgment? 

I think the answer is we have to lay in place systems of accountability for the future. Obviously, we recognize that, while we have 

got someone who doesn’t want to adhere to the rule of law, we have 

got a huge problem. But what we need to do is lay the foundations 

of justice and righteousness for the future, which we all want to 

build on in the future so the country can go forward. 

So I believe that there are measures that we can take to document things that are taking place, that we can invoke international 

conventions, that we can ensure that whatever can be done within 

the limited scope of our own justice system is done. 

Farmers at the moment and farm workers don’t have any money 

any longer to fight their own legal cases. So through Zimbabwe 

Lawyers for Human Rights and those kinds of organizations to 

help people in those positions where injustice is placing them and 

they can’t actually defend themselves, it is very important that 

those people are able to in some way defend themselves in their situations. 

But it is. It is a very difficult situation to know how to help people in this crisis. But we have to just look at whatever instruments 

that we possibly can to create accountability. And so to get committees to come out to Zimbabwe, see with their own eyes what is taking place, to get the Embassy to go out to situations out of the 

Harare bubble, as we call it, to see situations, this is really critical. 

It is really important. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Just one final question: What does 

a seizure look like? It is not just one. It will be several. Where are 

the farmers? I mean, are some in jail? Have some emigrated elsewhere? Are they just simply impoverished? And the workers that 

very often are equally displaced, if my understanding is correct, 

where do they go? 

As I think both of you mentioned, and I have been following it 

myself, which is why I asked Dr. Smith several questions along 

these lines. Is Zimbabwe heading toward another manmade famine 

because of a totally reckless and irresponsible and wrong policy toward people who own those farms? Where are they? 

And if you would just speak a little bit about the court. What 

kind of proceeding was it? Was it before multiple judges? And what 

is the enforcement power or was—Mr. Clawson—what was the enforcement power of the court itself? Is it more of an admonishment 

51

or do they have a standing in countries where judgments are meted 

out? 

Mr. FREETH. Okay. First of all, what does a takeover look like. 

Essentially what happens is someone comes along with an offer letter signed by the minister. He says, ‘‘I am the new owner of this 

farm.’’

And, basically, what then happens is he can then get very violent, as they did in our case. Many of our workers were severely 

beaten. They had fractured skulls, broken bones, people thrown 

into fires, police coming out, putting workers who had been beaten 

up into high-security jail, and just creating absolute mayhem. 

The police then also get involved. And there is a prosecution 

process if you refuse to get off. And the trial can go on for a very, 

very long time. I know farmers who have spent more than 100 days 

in court at their trials. And it is very, very painful going through 

a trial. Facing 2 years in a Zimbabwe jail is no joke. 

So people obviously get drained financially. A hundred days in 

court is a lot of money in lawyers’ fees. They get drained emotionally. And when they eventually have to leave the farm, they very 

often leave with nothing. 

I mean, in our case, all our tractors were stolen, all our crops 

were stolen, our generators, our pumps, our irrigation equipment. 

All our wildlife was killed. We had a safari lodge. That was burnt 

down. Our house was burnt down. My parents-in-law’s house was 

burnt down. Various workers’ houses were burnt down. 

So it is a pretty dramatic thing that takes place on the farm 

when these situations occur, and it creates an environment of absolute fear in that whole area so that no one wants to in any way 

oppose the government in the future. 

The farm workers normally remain on the property mostly. Many 

of them were migrant laborers that came down three or four generations ago from Malawi and Mozambique and Zambia in the heyday of Zimbabwean agriculture. But they have lost all touch with 

their families back there. They have got no communal land to be 

able to go back to. 

So they mostly remain on the farms where they can and eke out 

an existence, which is incredibly frugal. They don’t have money to 

buy seed. They don’t have money to buy fertilizer. They are normally allowed to plant a little bit of maize and that sort of thing 

around their houses. But they cannot then send their children to 

school. They cannot feed themselves properly. And that is a huge 

percentage of our population. So it is a massive problem that has 

unfolded over many years. 

As far as the SADC Tribunal is concerned, this was a court that 

was set up through the Southern African Development Community 

Treaty that was eventually put into place. The treaty was signed 

in 1992. But the SADC Tribunal eventually only opened for business in—the judges were appointed in 2005, ten judges from different southern African countries. And at any one time, five judges 

would sit at a particular hearing. 

So the process that took place in our situation was the Zimbabwe 

Government agreed to allow whatever judgment came out of the 

SADC Tribunal. They said they would adhere to that. They argued 

the case. They finally in the final hearing wanted to defer the case. 

52

And when we went for a contempt later on, they actually walked 

out of the courtroom. 

But they argued the full case. And the SADC Tribunal then 

made their judgment, all five judges, on November 28, 2008. And 

the judgment is there. It is a final and binding judgment. But, unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government did not accept that judgment. 

We went on to register the judgment in South Africa. And we 

had a cost award against the Zimbabwe Government. So we attached a house belonging to the Zimbabwe Government in Cape 

Town. And the Zimbabwe Government suddenly realized that it 

wasn’t just a bit of paper that they could tear up. It actually meant 

something. And so they suddenly came and they paid the lawyers’ 

fees and stopped the auction taking place of that Zimbabwe Government house. 

But to this day they have not adhered to the judgment on the 

ground and allowed the people who should be allowed to carry on 

farming to do so. And so we are in a situation at the moment 

where we have got the judgment, but there are no teeth to actually 

adhere to it. 

There were various provisions in the treaty for sanctions to be 

able to put by the other Southern African Development Community 

countries against Zimbabwe, but they did not choose to follow that 

route and, rather, dissolved the whole court. 

And that is why the various law societies in the Southern African 

Development Community are taking their governments to court 

and saying, ‘‘You can’t do that. You can’t just, because you don’t 

like the court, close it down to the citizens of southern Africa.’’

So I think it is very important for the people of southern Africa 

that that court is in place, and whatever can be done to support 

initiatives to resurrect that court are very important. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. How long has it been defunct? 

Mr. FREETH. Since 2012. And what they are saying now is that 

they are going to—well, they have put together a new protocol that 

will allow state-to-state conflicts to be adjudicated upon, but no individuals are able to approach the court. So from one year to the 

next, the court will simply not sit. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. That sounds like an inferior remedy 

to me, not having people to have access to such a tribunal. Thank 

you. 

And we will follow up on your recommendations, both of yours. 

So many excellent ones. We will scope out the idea of approaching 

the administration to see—because, as the executive branch, it 

would be their call—to bring an action as a member state to the 

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination. 

It has been my experience that there is often a reluctance on the 

part of the executive branch, but it is worth pursuing. And I thank 

you for that recommendation. Of course, even if they came down 

and came down strongly in your favor, which I think the facts 

would lead inexorably to, their enforcement powers are very limited 

as well. 

But it would at least create a surge, especially in a post-Mugabe 

government, when, as part of reconciliation, justice is being looked 

53

at very clearly as well. There should be justice for all. And I thank 

you for so eloquently stating your case, but the case of so many 

others. 

I do have a question: How many farmers are there that have 

been dispossessed of their farms? 

Mr. FREETH. There were about 4,500 White commercial farms. 

And it is difficult to say, but probably a couple of hundred still 

eking out a living in some way. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And are there farmers still in prison? 

Mr. FREETH. They imprisoned some people. But, basically, people 

got out. What the magistrate would normally say or normally does 

is say, ‘‘You need to get off the farm. If you are back on the farm 

in any way at all, then we will put you in jail,’’ so a suspended sentence. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

You know, one of the joys of serving in Congress is that there 

are so many diverse individuals with tremendous backgrounds in 

law enforcement, humanitarian work. 

It is good to have an experienced prosecutor now joining our subcommittee, Mr. Donovan. 

Thank you so much again. And I look forward to working with 

you going forward. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

56

f


94836n.eps
57

Æ


94836m.eps