U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

62–664PDF 2010

ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 2, 2010

Serial No. 111–137

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Steven McDonald, Consulting Program Director, Africa Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ................................................... 6

Mr. Sydney Masamvu, Political Analyst, Institute for Democracy in Africa 

(IDASA) ................................................................................................................. 16

Mr. Deprose Muchena, Program Manager, Economic Justice, Open Society 

Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) ............................................................... 24

Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D., Political Analyst, Center for Global Liberty and 

Prosperity, CATO Institute ................................................................................. 34

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Steven McDonald: Prepared statement .......................................................... 9

Mr. Sydney Masamvu: Prepared statement .......................................................... 18

Mr. Deprose Muchena: Prepared statement .......................................................... 26

Marian L. Tupy, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 36

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

(1)

ZIMBABWE: FROM CRISIS TO RENEWAL 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Payne (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PAYNE. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health will come to order. Our topic today is Zimbabwe: From 

Crisis to Renewal. 

Good morning. Let me welcome all of you here today in regard 

to this very important hearing entitled: ‘‘Zimbabwe: From Crisis to 

Renewal.’’ This is the second hearing that I have held this year on 

Zimbabwe, so it is testimony to the fact that we feel that Zimbabwe 

is a very, very important country and that we need to focus on it 

to see if we can move it from its past and current situation to an 

improved one. We think that it is important that we continue to 

debate over U.S. policy toward that country. 

At our last hearing, I gave a brief overview of Zimbabwe’s great 

history, because in the midst of ongoing political and economic crisis that continues to plague Zimbabwe, its past rich history is often 

forgotten. As we will hear from our esteemed witnesses, there is 

still hope for the renewal that so many seek in Zimbabwe. 

However, serious challenges remain. That is one of the purposes 

why we are still focusing on Zimbabwe. The purpose of this hearing 

is to explore those challenges and to discuss the ways that U.S. policy can have a positive impact. It is very easy to chastise and to 

sanction and to isolate. It is very difficult to try to see how we can 

have a transformational policy to see if we can bring a country 

from its doldrums into the new millennium as we speak. 

In September 2008, the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, 

was signed between the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, ZANU–PF, led by President Robert Mugabe; the Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, led my Prime Minister Morgan 

Tsvangirai; and the Movement for Democratic Change Mutambara, 

MDC–M; and a coalition government was formed. Since then, important progress has been made, yet serious challenges remain and 

the people of Zimbabwe continue to suffer. Due to the difficult economic and security conditions an estimated 3 million people fled 

Zimbabwe for South Africa and unemployment rates have reached 

over 90 percent. Civil society groups, labor unions, and other ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:34 Dec 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\120210\62664 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

nomic groups continue to face harassment and intimidation from 

ZANU–PF-ruled security forces. 

We are now 2 years since the GPA was signed. In Zimbabwe, as 

we have seen in our countries, most strikingly in Sudan, whose 

own CPA, Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is in danger of failure, 

agreements do not of themselves bring peace. The agreement is 

merely the foundation upon which a peace and a process of change 

can be built. It is a framework. And we tend to want to hope that 

the framework will work. But as we have seen, it is difficult and 

many times unattainable. 

In the case of the GPA, many see it as having already failed because ZANU–PF still controls much of the power in the coalition 

government. However, I believe that there are elements within the 

coalition government, not just in the opposition, who want to see 

real change in Zimbabwe and with whom we can work to improve 

the lives of everyday Zimbabweans. 

The new government has faced formidable challenges to responding to widespread humanitarian needs, including addressing a serious cholera outbreak in 2008 and 2009 that claimed more than 

4,000 lives, and in implementing the reforms necessary to repair a 

badly damaged economy. 

Despite odds that seem stacked against progress, improvements 

have been made in several sectors by the new government. Ministers from MDC, particularly the economic reforms by Finance 

Minister Tendai Biti, present what many Zimbabweans and the 

international community, myself included, believe is an opportunity 

to push for political reform and economic recovery. 

Proof of the growing sense that Zimbabwe is slowly moving in 

the right direction is the recent establishment of the Enterprise 

Zimbabwe founded by Sir Richard Branson, Pam Omidyar of Humanity United, and Nduna Foundation, which seeks to attract investments toward Zimbabwe’s economic and social recovery. 

Although I remain concerned about the harassment of opposition 

and civil society activists by ZANU–PF elements, the human rights 

situation has improved, though modestly. 

I had the opportunity to meet with President Mugabe in the 

spring of 2009, the first meeting of a U.S. official in several years, 

and it lasted for several hours. And I shared with him my concern 

over the lack of implementation of GPA and the continued harassment of human rights groups like Women of Zimbabwe Arise—

WOZA—and opposition activists. And we had a very thorough discussion about that where he was ready to deny that it was perpetrated by his government but that these were things that happened. And we did see a downturn in the attack on the women immediately following our meetings. However, we have seen problems 

arise again. 

Despite the economic turnabout begun by Minister Biti, the majority of Zimbabweans face enormous challenges and live on less 

than $1 a day. Other challenges that remain include the approval 

of a new constitution that reflects the will of the people and the 

security sector reform, which is extremely important. 

As I have previously stated, the method of redistribution of land 

from white land owners to political allies of President Mugabe was 

misguided and wrong. However, the land issue is a real problem 

3

in the region, and I am committed to seeing a just and equitable 

distribution of land throughout Southern Africa consistent with the 

rule of law. We can’t say that the problem does not exist. However, 

a solution to the problem has to be in an equitable way. 

I am also concerned about the impact that the indigenization 

law, enacted earlier this year, which requires all firms to have majority black shareholders, will have on the ability to attract investment. 

These are things which I would like to continue to engage President Mugabe on in a constructive way. The injustices left behind 

with the legacy of colonialism must be seriously addressed. They do 

not go away. However, it may be a more constructive way to look 

at other models for redressing these wrongs, such as the Black Economic Empowerment Program in South Africa. 

Let me again state that this is a serious issue that must be addressed. Again, I believe Zimbabwe is at a critical juncture, which 

requires real leadership from the U.S. to engage other donors in 

the renewal of Zimbabwe’s political, economic, and social structure. 

Currently, U.S. policy cannot take full advantage of the changing 

realities in Zimbabwe because of restrictions on assistance in certain key areas. I believe with greater flexibility the administration 

would be able to do just that. 

To that end, earlier this year I introduced the Zimbabwe Renewal Act, H.R. 5971, which would provide the following: One, cancellation of Zimbabwe’s debt; support for full implementation of the 

GPA assistance for democratic and judicial reform, economic recovery, human rights, labor rights, press freedom, health care, education, clean water, agriculture, and youth employment; support for 

land reform; technical assistance to key ministries; maintain sanctions where needed; and call for a review and removal of certain 

sanctions if certain conditions are met to support the GPA and the 

economic, social, and democratic renewal of Zimbabwe. 

I hope that, moving forward, this bill will receive wider support 

of this committee toward working for a better chance for all people 

in Zimbabwe. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses today. Although the 

panel is made up of all men, we invited four different women. 

Women staff wanted me to make sure that I mention this. I wanted 

to be sure that I mentioned it. 

We invited women from Humanity United, Nduna Foundation, 

Enterprise Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe Peace Project. And, unfortunately, none of them could make it today. The experts we have 

today, though, although they are not women, that is clear, I think 

that they will all do an excellent job. 

With that I will recognize our ranking member, Mr. Smith. 

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

for calling this very important hearing. And welcome to our witnesses. 

We are all familiar with the sad reports from Zimbabwe, recently 

known as the world’s fastest shrinking economy. Before Robert 

Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s dictator president, agreed to a power sharing 

with the Movement for Democratic Change in 2009, prices were 

known to double every 24 hours, and for 2008 the IMF reported inflation at 500 billion percent and economic growth at negative 14 

4

percent. Though MDC reforms seem to have broken the hyperinflation, the situation is extremely difficult, with massive unemployment and immigration and broken systems of health care and 

education. 

It is difficult to even grasp the tragedy lived by millions of 

Zimbabweans. Until 10 or 15 years ago, they lived in one of the 

most prosperous African countries. Perhaps the most human measure of the suffering caused by economic failure is the decline in life 

expectancy, which fell from 56 years in 1990 to 44 years in 2008. 

In the past 2 years, it has risen slightly, to 47.5. These numbers 

reflect millions of families without moms and dads and probably 

even more mothers and fathers who have lost their children. 

This is not the result of accidental misrule or weak government 

in chaotic conditions but of Mugabe’s ruthless pursuit of total control. He is a declared admirer of the North Korean Juche system. 

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom 

in 2009, Zimbabwe ranked 178th, right behind Cuba and right in 

front of, last place, North Korea. His violent harassment of the opposition, human rights activists, and journalists includes torture 

and death. 

But Mugabe and his ZANU–PF party were not able to achieve, 

the same control over Zimbabwe as the Kim family has over North 

Korea. Zimbabwean civil society and human rights activists, including the men and women of the Movement for Democratic 

Change, have heroically organized themselves in opposition to 

Mugabe. For years, they have understood that the only way forward for Zimbabwe is to throw off Mugabe and the criminal elements of ZANU. 

After Mugabe’s ease attempt to steal the 2008 election failed, we 

all hoped that the power sharing agreement that Mugabe was 

forced to accept with the Movement for Democratic Change and 

Morgan Tsvangirai would create a new situation. We hoped 

Mugabe and ZANU–PF security chiefs would have to loosen their 

choking grip on that country. Unfortunately, this has not happened, nor is there any sign that despite the admirable and often 

heroic efforts of the MDC that it will happen any time in the foreseeable future. 

Mugabe and his lieutenants have managed to keep control over 

the key level of power, to limit the MDC ministers real authority, 

often by ignoring them, and to frustrate the purposes of the agreement. 

And so now we are back before questions of how U.S. policy can 

encourage change in Zimbabwe, whether current sanctions on 

Zimbabwe should be retargeted and how humanitarian aid might 

be restructured. 

I want to note for the record that we are joined at our hearing 

by Jeff Flake, a member of this committee, obviously. But Jeff 

Flake actually lived in Zimbabwe between 1982 and 1983 and he 

actually wrote his master’s thesis on Robert Mugabe. So we have 

a man that has been following this for virtually all of his adult life. 

And it is great to have him here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Congresswoman Woolsey, do you have an opening statement? 

5

Ms. WOOLSEY. A very short one, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Zimbabwe, I believe, could have been one of the great post-colonial nations in Africa. Instead, President Mugabe plundered his 

own country, laid waste to a profitable economy, a strong education 

sector, and a dynamic population. The proud and strong people of 

Zimbabwe deserve so much better. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today and 

learning if and how our foreign aid assistance is helping to elevate 

Zimbabwe back to its rightful place as a regional leader in Southern Africa. So thank you for this hearing. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. We will now move into our witnesses’ 

testimony. Let me introduce the four gentlemen before us. 

We have with us, first, we will hear from Mr. Steve McDonald. 

Mr. McDonald is the Consulting Director of the Africa Program and 

the Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity at the 

Woodrow Center for International Scholars in Washington, DC, 

where he has worked since 2002. Mr. McDonald helped to design, 

initiate, and now manages the Center’s leadership capacity building and post-conflict resolution programs in Burundi, the DRC, and 

Liberia. Mr. McDonald has a master’s degree in African Politics 

from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, and has lived on and worked with Africa for 40 years. 

Mr. McDonald began his career in Africa in 1970 as an embassy 

officer in the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, and later served 

in South Africa as the Desk Officer for Angola, Mozambique, Cape 

Verde, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe. During these 

years, he served as support staff to the Anglo-American Initiative 

on Rhodesia that led to the Lancaster House and the Zimbabwean 

settlement and the Five Power negotiations on Southwest Africa/

Namibia. In 1980, Mr. McDonald moved to the nonprofit sector, 

where he has headed the U.S.-South Africa Leadership Development Program, Aspen Institute’s Southern Africa Policy Forum, 

and was one of those responsible for bringing Mr. De Klerk together with Mr. Mandela for their first face-to-face meeting under 

the Aspen Institute, a meeting I happened to have the privilege to 

be at in the apartheid following the release of Mr. Mandela while 

Mr. De Klerk was still president. He has served as Executive Vice 

President of the African American Institute. He has also done conflict resolution work in Northern Ireland and Brazil. Mr. McDonald 

has published, edited, and written for numerous publications. 

Next, we have Mr. Sydney Masamvu. Mr. Masamvu is a Senior 

Political Analyst at the Institute for Democracy in Africa, IDASA. 

Mr. Masamvu works on Zimbabwean issues with IDASA’s States in 

Transition Observatory. IDASA’s States in Transition Observatory 

provides information and analysis on political developments in 

countries experiencing a transition or crisis. Mr. Masamvu is a 

journalist by trade. In addition to his work for IDASA, Mr. 

Masamvu has researched and written on Zimbabwe for the past 7 

years with Brussels-based International Crisis Group and consulted with the Elders Forum on Zimbabwe. 

6

Next, we have Mr. Deprose Muchena. Mr. Muchena is the Deputy Director and the Economic Justice Program Manager at the 

Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Prior to these appointments, Mr. Muchena worked with USAID in the Zimbabwe Mission 

as Democracy and Governance Adviser. Mr. Muchena is a highly 

respected human rights defender in Zimbabwe, having been among 

the founding members of the National Constitutional Assembly and 

continuing to serve on the boards of various NGOs. 

Earlier in his career, Mr. Muchena was at the Zimbabwe Council 

of Churches, focusing on economic and social rights and the role of 

the church in promoting and protecting fundamental freedoms and 

civil liberties. 

Finally, we have Dr. Marian L. Tupy. Dr. Tupy is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity specializing in the study of the political economy of Europe 

and sub-Saharan Africa. Dr. Tupy has worked on the Council on 

Foreign Relations’ Commission on Angola and advised the Central 

Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of State on Central 

Europe. Dr. Tupy received his B.A. In International Relations and 

Classics from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his Ph.D. In International Relations from 

the University of St. Andrews in Great Britain. Dr. Tupy’s articles 

have been published in a number of outlets both in the United 

States and overseas. He has appeared on various television programs in the United States and throughout the world. 

We welcome this panel. 

Mr. McDonald. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN MCDONALD, CONSULTING PROGRAM DIRECTOR, AFRICA PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON 

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS 

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

kind introduction. 

Congressman Smith, Congressman Woolsey, Congressman Flake, 

it is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before you. 

I have had the honor of working with the distinguished chairman, 

Donald Payne, before over the last 20 years or so, as a matter of 

fact. He has made allusion to that. And it is really, really a delight 

to be here again and working with him. 

The challenge that lies before us today reminds me a little bit 

of the work we did in the 1980s on South Africa, where we are 

dealing with a regime that needed to have some sanctions taken 

against it, needed to have a strong push to change the way in 

which things were unfolding there, but at the same time needed to 

protect the people, needed to work in a positive way to ensure a 

democratic future. And I think that is the challenge that lies before 

us today. 

I want to begin my oral testimony with a caveat about myself. 

I appreciate the introduction and all. I was involved very intimately and very early on in 1976 to 1980 with the transition from 

Rhodesia to Zimbabwe as a U.S. diplomat. And I worked in subsequent years with that country in various other capacities but I 

haven’t visited Zimbabwe in 10 years. And while I stay in close 

touch with the colleagues who do visit and with Zimbabwean 

7

friends both in and outside of the country, my reflections on the 

current situation are, of necessity, secondhand. 

Therefore, having had a good look at the scope and depth of the 

testimony that you are about to hear from my colleagues here at 

the table with me who are going to describe in detail the current 

state of play and fragility of the Global Political Agreement—the 

GPA—and the transitional inclusive government and the human 

rights abuses and the economic situation that besets that country, 

I think my best focus would be on some aspects of what the U.S. 

can most usefully do to make a difference in encouraging the renewal of Zimbabwe that we all seek. 

In my submitted testimony, written testimony, I elaborate on the 

record of abuse on ZANU–PF from 1980 to 2008. I talk about the 

early optimism that I think you referred to, Mr. Chairman, from 

the international community, and Congresswoman Woolsey, too, 

and the disappointment now that exists over the human rights 

abuses, the abrogation of democratic norms, the corruption and 

mismanagement that has occurred in constituent years. 

In response, of course, as we well know, and as detailed in your 

opening remarks, the international community has responded with 

an application of a number of sanctions against government officials, redirecting of development aid through nongovernmental 

channels, statements of strong condemnation of human rights 

abuses, encouragement of the regional—SADC and Africa Union—

peace initiatives, support for the GPA, a new constitution and free 

and fair elections, but a strong cooling of our bilateral relations. 

Although the implementation of a GPA has been painfully slow, 

the very fact that it exists, that the opposition party, the MDC 

holds the prime minister’s office and other significant ministries 

mostly focused on the economic and development, has given outside 

observers some room for optimism. 

With signs of recovery in the economy now, continuing promises 

of cooperation amongst the parties to the coalition government to 

push through the actions called for by the GPA and a new government in South Africa and dynamics within SADC that indicate the 

end of a tolerance for the Mugabe regime, legislation has now been 

offered in both the House and the Senate that would seek to continue to apply pressure to this wayward regime and to the individuals who have not committed to the GPA, while at the same time 

not exacerbating the damage to the fabric of the economy and the 

welfare of the people of Zimbabwe; and, more important, looking to 

the future, fashioning a way to support a viable opposition and encourage a return to democratic governance. 

I would caution policymakers as they look at possible policy options to be certain there are some sticks along with the carrots; 

that monitoring of performance on democracy and recovery be strict 

and comprehensive and that they do not allow the government to 

use any lifting of sanctions, however targeted and whatever caveats 

are applied, as a propaganda victory. 

I know my colleagues here will offer some concrete suggestions 

in their testimony on how U.S. policy and engagement might be 

shaped in the coming years. Legislation offered by this body and 

your colleagues in the Senate offer a number of possible avenues 

for positively impacting the transition. 

8

Let me add only one further thought on one specific aspect of the 

renewal that has to come and I believe is coming. Based on my own 

experiences in other conflict and post-conflict countries in Africa, as 

well as conversations I have had with Zimbabweans currently engaged in pushing for recovery there, I would like to underline an 

important and often overlooked element in dealing with conflicted 

societies. Any country emerging from conflict has several common 

imperatives. They are intuitive but almost always ignored. Trust 

has been broken and the antagonists to the conflict do not have a 

sense of interdependence or shared interests. Relationships are 

torn asunder. Communications are characterized by posturing and 

accusations. The key stakeholders do not listen to each other and 

discourse is confrontational. Finally, there is no agreement on how 

power is to be shared and decisions made. In short, there is no 

common vision and sense of common identity. 

There are tried and tested ways in which antagonists can be 

brought together to address these issues, rebuild the trust, and 

form collaborative relations that allow them to solve problems together and move forward while still taking into account the interests of all. Sometimes this approach is listed as reconciliation or 

conflict resolution, but it is really conflict transformation—changing the way in which people compete, how they think about and 

interact with each other. At a level where insidious and self-serving 

interests seem dominant, where the outside world sees no political 

will from the opposing parties to reach out to each other, this job, 

of course, can be very, very difficult. 

But my program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, as the chairman 

has mentioned, has been pioneering this methodology for over 8 

years in Burundi and the DRC and Liberia with increasing levels 

of success and the formation of networks of committed leaders to 

work together for a common future. These are ideas that I have explored with colleagues at IDASA and IDAZIM, who are at the table 

here today, in Johannesburg, and Search for Common Ground here 

in Washington and Harare, and we are exploring how best we 

might be able to assist in the transition as the renewal of 

Zimbabwe begins to take place. 

The points of entry will differ from programs we have done elsewhere, and one might have to start at a local or community level. 

Civil society, along with political power brokers, must be involved. 

But it must be a part of any renewal effort, in tandem with or even 

preceding the setting in place of institutional frameworks and processes, such as elections. Without trust, without a shared vision, 

without a sense of interdependence and willingness to collaborate, 

the agendas of democratic governance, development, reconciliation, 

and recovery cannot go forward. 

I am pleased to see that bills now under consideration address 

this element by providing support for reconciliation efforts, 

strengthening local government, and encouraging a peace-building 

process. I hope this remains central to any role the U.S. decides to 

play. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to take any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]

9


62664a-1.eps
10


62664a-2.eps
11


62664a-3.eps
12


62664a-4.eps
13


62664a-5.eps
14


62664a-6.eps
15


62664a-7.eps
16

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Masamvu. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SYDNEY MASAMVU, POLITICAL ANALYST, 

INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA (IDASA) 

Mr. MASAMVU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee, for inviting me and my organization. We look forward 

to testifying to this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to talk about: Zimbabwe: 

From Crisis to Renewal. But I want to state from the outset that 

Zimbabwe faces a critical 6 months. The honeymoon which has 

been enjoyed over the past 18 months is a result of the formation 

of the inclusive government, which brought some semblance of stability and peace, is about to end. 

In coming to the new year, Zimbabwe will enter into an election 

mode. I believe before we even look forward to the renewal of 

Zimbabwe, we need the U.S., along with other actors, need actually 

to be on top of the situation and try to influence events in the next 

6 months which have the capacity to bring Zimbabwe back to the 

period of March 2008. 

Two critical elements are looming large with regard to the situation unfolding in Zimbabwe in the next 6 months—the election 

process and the key role of the military in that particular election. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the issue in 

Zimbabwe is no longer about the credibility of elections or the perceived outcome of the elections. The critical issue in Zimbabwe is 

about the power transfer. It is important right now that any intervention in Zimbabwe has to smoothen the key elements which undercut or which undermine the voice of the people, which they have 

done, which they have spoken to over the past 10 years. 

Any process or any legislation which can be pushed from wherever source which marginalizes and underlooks the key role played 

by the military in the Zimbabwe crisis will actually achieve nothing 

to push the transition forward and return the country to democracy. The military which is the one which actually for the past 18 

months has actually been dictating the course of events in the inclusive government. All the issues which are sort of the 

fractionality of the inclusive government has largely been undermined by the key role played by the military, which behind the 

scenes is the one which is playing a key role of driving the leaders 

of power in Zimbabwe. 

So as we move forward I think the immediate objective in the 

next 6 months, before we even talk of renewal, is actually to influence the issue of the election process and try to structure a transition process which takes on board the concerns of the military, 

which by extension is taking on board the concerns of President 

Robert Mugabe. 

Over the past 8 years it has been quite clear that the restrictive 

measures which have been put in place have failed to a very large 

extent to achieve the objective which they have set out to do. The 

restrictive measures were put in place to encourage the return of 

Zimbabwe to the rule of law, to promote good governance, and actually to encourage those undermining democracy in Zimbabwe to 

change course. But, alas, 8 years down the line those measures 

17

have not achieved the set out objectives. And we believe going forward it is actually important that the restrictive measures we have 

put in place because of a flawed election and the upcoming election, 

whenever it is held, should actually set out the platform in which 

the whole issue of restrictive measures should be viewed within the 

context of an election process. 

It is our considered view that unless the U.S., working through 

the AU, SADC, and with South Africa, the U.S. should actually 

take a leading role in actually bringing together the key elements 

within the region and on the continent to actually smoothen the 

transition process in Zimbabwe and broaden the platform—not only 

look at restrictive measures, but also looking at the concerns, fears 

of the military establishment, which is actually key in smoothening 

the transition process in Zimbabwe. If those issues are not addressed, critically the issues which affect the military, I think it 

would be premature for us even to talk of a Zimbabwe renewal before we talk actually of influencing the key elements which are actually extending the way of democratization. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Masamvu follows:]

18


62664b-1.eps
19


62664b-2.eps
20


62664b-3.eps
21


62664b-4.eps
22


62664b-5.eps
23


62664b-6.eps
24

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Muchena. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DEPROSE MUCHENA, PROGRAM MANAGER, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE FOR 

SOUTHERN AFRICA (OSISA) 

Mr. MUCHENA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee. I appear before you as a very patriotic 

Zimbabwean who is part of a post-colonial generation in Zimbabwe 

but trying very hard to have a role to play in the progress of our 

country. I want to underscore the points already made by Mr. 

Masamvu, which is to say the next 6 months represents a critical 

crossroads for Zimbabwe because what we have seen is the return 

of election talk without implementing fully the requirement of the 

Global Political Agreement, which would allow a credible election 

to take place and transfer of power to take place and a legitimate 

democratic government to become the product of that. That has always been the purpose of the GPA, to facilitate the transition of 

Zimbabwe from crisis to renewal. 

Four critical goals of the Global Political Agreement are overdue 

for delivery. The first is a new constitution approved through a 

popular vote; the second is a free and fair media environment; the 

third is a reformed electoral system with a clean voters’ law that 

doesn’t have ghost voters on it. The fourth and last is an agreedupon package of security sector reforms that would facilitate noninterference of the military in the conduct and running of elections. 

These four things have not been delivered, and they have therefore 

undermined progress that had been hitherto achieved on the economy since the inauguration of the inclusive government. 

Last week, on the 25th of November, on Thursday, the Minister 

of Finance submitted a budget to Parliament for 2011. The total 

budget is $2.6 billion. And of that, 82 percent of that budget is 

going to go toward financing recurrent expenditure and only 18 

percent is going to be for capital investment. That represents a precarious position on the part of Zimbabwe. And if you have the national debt of $6.7 billion, then you can see that Zimbabwe needs 

to pass a similar budget for the next 3 years to finance the debt, 

and it has become the albatross around Zimbabwe’s neck. 

So limited political movement and reform is beginning to undermine economic progress, and the inability of the government to finance the debt is creating mutually enforcing political and economic crisis. The view of this more fully appears in my statement. 

I think there are about four things that we need to be supporting. It is time, in my view, for leadership and not necessarily 

legislation, because post-election, that is when you can actually 

provide legislation that responds and rewards or punish. The U.S. 

Government would need to renew its leadership role with SADC. 

It is the African Union Sharm el Sheikh resolution that resulted 

in the GPA’s coming into place. We need to bring the AU back into 

the fold, ensure that there is a special envoy working with SADC, 

to make sure that progress is made. We need the U.S. Government 

to really encourage much more robust audits of what has happened 

to date. We also need the U.S. Government to freeze the legislative 

25

process and use its diplomatic muscle to ensure that the two submissions I am making are achieved. 

The final part, because of elections that are coming, in the absence of freedom and in the absence of funding, we need to establish or the establishment of a Zimbabwe election fund, which is 

managed by the U.N. That ensures that the Zimbabwe Election 

Commission is ready to carry out elections. Last week, the budget 

statement did not make available resources for running the election. It only says there should be an election fund. So it creates serious problems if you talk about election without supporting the 

resolution of those elections and financing. 

The last one is really a much more sharper focus on the role the 

military has played in Zimbabwe. It is important to re-energize the 

focus of SADC and the AU so that the military can move away 

from the premise of supporting regime security toward supporting 

human security and development. We have no role in modern democracies for the military to leave the barracks and begin to be involved in processes of election management or even governance. 

I think I am prepared to take any questions, as appears more 

fully from my statement. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muchena follows:]

26


62664c-1.eps
27


62664c-2.eps
28


62664c-3.eps
29


62664c-4.eps
30


62664c-5.eps
31


62664c-6.eps
32


62664c-7.eps
33


62664c-8.eps
34

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Tupy. 

STATEMENT OF MARIAN L. TUPY, PH.D., POLITICAL ANALYST, 

CENTER FOR GLOBAL LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY, CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. TUPY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and 

gentlemen, I am honored to give my testimony on Zimbabwe: From 

Crisis to Renewal. The power-sharing Global Political Agreement of 

2008 was meant to return Zimbabwe on a path to democracy and 

economic prosperity. It was, however, a very flawed document that 

ignored the express will of the Zimbabwean people. It left the military and the Department of Justice in the hands of the ZANU–PF. 

Crucially, as it turned out over the past 2 years, it left the ZANU–

PF also the control of the Ministry of Mines. 

The mining ministry is essentially an offshoot of the Zimbabwean 

military. Over the past 2 years, it has been awarding mining concessions for exploration of Zimbabwe’s natural resources, including 

diamonds and gold, to a number of South African, Chinese, and 

Russian state-controlled or government-linked corporations. Part of 

the proceeds from those mining operations are then channeled back 

to the Zimbabwean military and the ZANU–PF. Reports indicate 

that laborers in Zimbabwean mines includes Chinese and 

Zimbabwean prisoners. The sharing of the proceeds from mining 

exploration with the military but not with the rest of the population suggests that Mugabe and ZANU–PF are trying to buy the 

loyalty of the armed forces to order a crackdown on the opposition 

in the future. 

To sum up, the GPA did not represent a power to democratic 

forces. It is therefore unsurprising that the ZANU–PF has essentially blocked progress on reforms that are vital if electoral reform, 

or rather democratic transition is to take place. Among the measures blocked by the ZANU–PF are the drafting and adoption of the 

new constitution, liberalization of the media, reform of the electoral 

system and depoliticization of the military and the police force. It 

is my belief that the uneasy truce between the two parties will unravel as soon as ZANU–PF decides that the benefits of eliminating 

the MDC outweigh the costs of terminating the remnants of the 

GPA. 

So where do we go from here? First of all, it is the responsibility 

of the Zimbabwean people to chart their own course. There are 

clear limits to what the United States Government and well-meaning Americans can do. Here are some of the measures that I believe 

the United States Government can do: The continuation of targeted 

sanctions against persons and companies responsible for perpetuation of violence and economic mismanagement in Zimbabwe; spearheading of international effort to further isolate Mugabe and 

ZANU–PF, which could include intensive pressure on governments 

in the region to resolve the issue of Zimbabwe in favor of democracy and economic growth; ban of the exports of blood diamonds 

from Zimbabwe under the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme. 

Lastly, continuation, and preferably, expansion of the Voice of 

America radio coverage to Zimbabwe. Most Zimbabweans rely on 

radio for news. Speaking to one of the senior opposition leaders in 

35

Zimbabwe, I have learned the VOA is the only truthful voice coming to Zimbabwe. In every village, people listen to the radio. Unfortunately, the VOA broadcast only lasts for 1 hour a day. I find it 

absolutely astonishing that 10 years after Zimbabwe embarked on 

its road to ruin, the VOA broadcasts are that short. Having grown 

up behind the Iron Curtain, I can personally attest to the power 

of truthful information in undermining tyrannical regimes. 

The role of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the collapse 

of communism was, I believe, absolutely vital. The U.S. Government has often expressed its willingness to step up its financial aid 

to Zimbabwe, and yet I believe that the U.S. Government can help 

the people of Zimbabwe in a much more effective and efficient way 

by enabling more Zimbabweans to access truthful information on a 

more frequent basis. Let the people make up their minds about the 

course of action they want to take to improve their lot. 

I believe that the following actions should be avoided: Provision 

of foreign aid to the government of Zimbabwe either now or in the 

event of the government falling into the hands of the MDC. Experience shows that aid is a disincentive to reform. Without recourse 

to aid, the government of Zimbabwe has already taken some very 

important steps that could generate growth in the economy. Among 

that is the legalization of possession and trade in foreign currencies 

and partial liberalization of the business environment. These positive reforms have been offset by the threat of renewed political violence, uncertainty surrounding property rights, and indigenization 

policy that was already discussed. 

Far from stimulating development in Africa, aid has retarded it. 

I see no indication whatsoever that foreign aid to Zimbabwe would 

unleash economic growth. Quite to the contrary, it would likely 

slow it. In the past, aid to Africa has been, by and large, stolen or 

wasted. There is no surer way to corrupt a few remaining honest 

politicians and civil servants in Zimbabwe than to entice them into 

dishonest behavior with large sums of foreign money. 

A number of respected commentators in the United States and 

elsewhere have called on the United States and Western governments to support the MDC’s health and education departments. In 

addition to satisfying the understandable humanitarian impulse, 

the argument goes, Western aid could help the MDC accomplish 

concrete goals and improve the welfare of the Zimbabwean people, 

thus showing the difference between the self-interested ZANU–PF 

and the MDC. 

I believe that this point would be much more serious if there was 

a likelihood of a democratic transfer of power. That I do not see as 

very likely. Still, should the United States decide to increase aid 

to education and health departments in Zimbabwe, such aid should 

be accompanied by the highest degree of scrutiny. In my view, it 

should be ultimately overseen by American officials, secunded to 

health and education departments in Zimbabwe. 

In order to prosper, Zimbabwe needs to adopt the economic policies that enabled Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, and many other previously poor countries to rise from poverty 

to riches in a space of one or two generations. I believe that with 

a liberalized trade and domestic business environment, with a reformed judiciary that puts emphasis on the sanctity of persons and 

36

property, Zimbabwe can prosper as many countries have done in 

the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tupy follows:]


62664d-1.eps
37


62664d-2.eps
38


62664d-3.eps
39


62664d-4.eps
40


62664d-5.eps
41

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin by asking you—I think it was you, Mr. Muchena. 

You mentioned that you felt that in addition to the SADC, that the 

AU should be involved. Can you give me your feeling of the effectiveness of SADC under Thabo Mbeki’s leadership as president of 

South Africa, now with President Jacob Zuma leading South Africa, 

and therefore SADC indirectly, and why your feeling that it should 

be expanded to the overall Africa Union? 

Mr. MUCHENA. Thank you, Chairman. The role of Thabo Mbeki 

as mediator, it is successes and failures. But one of the most outstanding things about Thabo Mbeki’s role was the total contempt 

that he held for Zimbabweans, especially the opposition groups in 

Zimbabwe, and his overwhelming commitment in his role to save 

a decaying nationalist movement and impose his own will and looking at Zimbabwe through the lens of domestic political affairs in 

South Africa. So what he did most was to ensure that no progress 

would go forward that would essentially correspond with the will 

of the people. I think that is the hallmark of Mbeki’s role. 

He also sidestepped many of the people and ensured that 

Zimbabwe was his personal project and called in the African Union 

when he wanted it to come. But you will see that it was the African 

Union, driven in part by Article 4 of the constitutive act of the African Union, which is responsibility to protect doctrine, that they 

moved a motion Sharm el Sheikh to become involved in Zimbabwe 

and support SADC and guarantee the success of the GPA process. 

Since then, President Zuma has moved to take on the facilitation 

role of reporting to AU leaders from time to time. We think that 

the energy that was displayed by President Zuma in the initial 

months are beginning to falter and he needs to shorten the arm. 

And the shortened arm can come nowhere else than within the African Union itself, which is meeting, as you know, in February next 

year, and putting the matter on the agenda of the Africa Union so 

that it receives the report as a guarantor of the Global Political 

Agreement would enable movement in Zimbabwe. 

President Mugabe is not afraid of anyone in the world except 

fear of losing African support, and I think that is exactly what happened when the Sharm el Sheikh resolution was made. He discovered that he was now standing alone, and he went back and started to talk to opposition groups. It is time for the African Union to 

support the initiative of the SADC process by appointing a special 

envoy themselves who is going to engage directly with members of 

the parties but also with other people who are influencing the GPA, 

such as the military. And we think if that is done, there is a reasonable prospect that the United States and other actors can now 

support that process, which is African led and Zimbabwean led. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. McDonald, you have heard mention the Zimbabweans, that 

the next 6 months is going to be very critical. As an Africanist and 

have worked in conflicts and in areas where elections were coming, 

like in Namibia we have had, and South Africa and so forth, what 

would be four or five concrete steps you think that the U.S. should 

try to get support for? 

42

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to this in 

my opening remarks, what I think should be done in a pre-election 

period. There is a variety of things, obviously. And I note that contained within the legislation that you have proposed and I think 

some of the sister legislation on the other side addresses some of 

this. 

We, I think, tend to make mistakes as we approach elections and 

democratic processes in Africa—the ‘‘we’’ being the Western 

World—by assuming if we support institutional structures and give 

resources to that, give training toward that, that that will solve the 

problem. It is important to work as we can with the Zimbabwe 

Electoral Commission, to work with local monitoring groups with 

training and et cetera—vastly important—and also work with 

party structures themselves—the MDC and the other parties—to 

help in their ability to campaign freely and fairly and understand 

competition does not mean violence. 

But there really needs to be preparation work done with individuals themselves. And I think that Mr. Masamvu here, and I believe 

Mr. Muchena mentioned it as well, but put his finger on a very, 

very important aspect, and that is security sector reform. Security 

sector reform is writ large. We all understand or it is rumored that 

the army has played a very ominous role in the current situation 

in Zimbabwe, that they have been the power behind the throne, so 

to speak, and may have even prevented Mugabe at one point in 

time in 2008 of making certain compromises with opposition that 

he might have wanted to make because their own interests were 

not being served by that, without some work with the military in 

advance. And by this I mean addressing the kinds of fears that 

they have that Mr. Masamvu pointed out. 

It is something we never think about that well, why are elements 

within society like a military totally intractable. We dealt with this 

with a Tutsi-led army in Burundi. Why are they so intractable to 

change? It is because they are fear actual of change. They are fearful of what role they will play. It is not just the loss of privilege 

and the loss of position and the loss of access to mineral wealth 

and that sort of thing. It is, what will become of them. 

There is real, truthfully, work that needs to be done in the true 

sense of conflict resolution and transformation with all of these elements. It is a big thing to try to do in a short amount of time when 

elections are on the horizon and we find ourselves repeatedly in 

this position where preparations for elections should have started 

years before and we are now a few months before them and we are 

beginning to think about it. 

But I think we have need to begin to think about that people factor, working not just with the parties but with the military as well, 

with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, obviously putting in 

funds for training and working with local observers and monitors 

and bringing in as we can and be helpful with the bringing in of 

credible outside monitors. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. My time is expiring. Let me just ask you, 

Mr. Masamvu, what authority do you really feel that Prime Minister Tsvangirai has? Has his involvement as prime minister made 

much of a change in the activities? Are Zimbabweans better off 

today than they were before the MDC coalition GPA? 

43

Mr. MASAMVU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the greatest 

thing which happened in Zimbabwe was for the leadership of the 

opposition to agree to go into the inclusive government, taking cognizance of the suffering which the general population was experiencing at the time. I must hasten to point out, Mr. Chairman, that 

if Zimbabwe had gone for a further 2 or 3 months without an inclusive government in place, no matter how flawed the GPA was, actually, except the country from erupting into civil strife. So, by and 

large, the relative stability, peace, and somewhat recovery which is 

being experienced in Zimbabwe right now is credited to the entry 

of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai in government. Notwithstanding that, maybe the stakes or the balance of power is tilted 

against him. So to a very large extent right now the feeling on the 

ground—I was in Zimbabwe just about 2 weeks ago. When you ask 

the average, general person, no one is in the mood of in favoring 

an election. People are saying, Let this peace which we have been 

experiencing for the past 18 months proceed for some time. And 

they are all saying the opposition of Prime Minister Morgan 

Tsvangirai took a responsible decision by joining an inclusive government to allow people to pick up the pieces and sort of regroup 

and have peace in their lives. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Finally, Dr. Tupy, as you concluded your remarks about the 

waste and corruption and greedy politicians and bureaucrats you 

mention in Africa, therefore you are opposed to foreign aid. What 

is your opinion on Afghanistan and Iran? Are you opposed to Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars that we are sending over there in planes and cash? Is your position that you are opposed to criminal leaders in all countries—

I know we just asked you about Zimbabwe—but what is your view 

to what the U.S. Government has been doing for the last 10 years 

in Iraq and in Afghanistan? 

Mr. TUPY. Thank you. Yes, sir. My position is consistent. I do not 

believe that the United States should provide foreign aid, economic 

development aid, to countries abroad, not simply because it is often 

stolen and wasted in the way as we see on a daily basis in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, but fundamentally because in some countries that receive large chunks of foreign aid—sorry, governments 

that receive large chunks of foreign aid generally tend to be much 

less open to reforms, much less eager to build up their own private 

sector than countries that do not receive foreign aid. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Just maybe one quick question. You recall the 

Marshall Plan, and it might be from Europe. The Marshall Plan, 

actually it was not for foreign assistance. In the United States 

Marshall Plan, Europe probably would have taken another 30 or 40 

years before it recovered. There was an enormous amount of U.S. 

taxpayer money that went into the development of Europe, and—

than assisting countries today. 

Mr. TUPY. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question. 

Mr. PAYNE. Make it quick so my colleagues can go. I am sorry. 

I don’t know what is going on, but go ahead. 

Mr. TUPY. Four fundamental differences. One, the absolute 

amount of money involved in Marshall Plan is smaller than the 

44

amount of money that the United States alone, let alone the entire 

Western community, have given to Africa over the past 40 years. 

Secondly, it was time-limited to 4 years. We have now been giving foreign aid to Africa and many other countries around the 

world for 40 years. 

Thirdly, in Europe, Marshall Plan was reconstructing economies, 

not developing economies. Europe was already a developed continent when money was provided by the United States to reconstruct it, not to develop it from scratch. This is a very important 

difference between reconstruction and development. We know how 

to reconstruct. We don’t know how to develop. 

Mr. PAYNE. Unfortunately, my time has expired. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask all questions all 

at once just so that we can get to Mr. Flake as well, and any of 

you who would like to answer the questions, please do so. First of 

all——

Mr. PAYNE. We will have about 20 minutes or so, 25 to. 

Mr. SMITH. First, on the issue of human trafficking, which is an 

issue that I and so many of us deeply care about. Zimbabwe is a 

Tier 3 country. It is an egregious violator when it comes to the government not meeting minimum standards, and that is as issued 

just as recently as last June by the Office of Trafficking in Persons 

within the administration. And in reading the report, it is a scathing indictment that, for example, orphans without birth certificates 

are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, enforced labor and prostitution. It points out that young men and boys are forced by 

Zimbabwean Government security forces to work in the diamond 

mines. It points out that women and girls from towns bordering 

South Africa and Zambia are forced into prostitution in brothels 

that cater to long-distance truck drivers. And it goes on into how 

severely exploited these women are, often contracting HIV/AIDS 

and other STDs. 

And then the point is officials made no apparent efforts to 

proactively identify victims of trafficking. There have been no reports, according to the TIP report, of prostitutions or convictions for 

forced labor or forced prostitution, and even in 2009, seven 

Zimbabwean men who were recruited in Zimbabwe by a Chinese 

national for jobs, once they got to their destination, their passports 

were confiscated, and they were subjected to forced labor. And 

again, the TIP report reads like an indictment. 

Your views on what needs to be done. Yes, we want to obviously 

create better institutions of government, but here is a mirror that 

has been held up with our minimum standards in our law, the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and Zimbabwe’s people, especially its women and children, are being exploited cruelly. 

Secondly, on the issue of religious freedom, on November 17, the 

new religious freedom report came out and pointed out that the 

government harassed religious leaders who were critical of government policies, who spoke out against human rights abuses committed by the government, and who provided humanitarian assistance to citizens. It seems to me, like in every other government 

that we hope will matriculate from a dictatorship to a true thriving 

democracy, the churches, the faith community plays a key role in 

45

the cruelty that is being visited upon clergy and faith individuals 

who speak out. I would appreciate your views on that. 

And finally, you mentioned, Dr. Tupy, the Chinese prisoners that 

you reported upon, were they from Chinese gulags, brought in from 

China? Is that what you were talking about? And where does the 

wealth gleaned from the diamonds go? Does it go to Swiss bank accounts? Do we have any sense as to how that money was tracked, 

as the colonels and the generals rip off their own people who don’t 

benefit from the diamond mines, for example, because it goes into 

their bank accounts? 

Mr. TUPY. Sure. I will start with the last question. 

The story of Zimbabwean prisoners working in the mines is well 

established. In terms of the Chinese prisoners, these are anecdotal 

stories that I heard from Zimbabweans, many of them former farm 

owners or laborers whom I contacted in the last, say, few months. 

Obviously, those are, as I said, anecdotal stories.All I was told, 

these are Chinese prisoners who are working there. I don’t know 

whether these are political prisoners or prisoners who have been in 

prison——

Mr. SMITH. They are from China? 

Mr. TUPY. They are Chinese, yes. The Chinese have a long-established practice of importing their own labor into African countries. 

In many other circumstances, instances like the one in Zambia, for 

example, the Chinese laborers seem to be free individuals who do 

so willingly. Not so in Zimbabwe where they are perceived to have 

a forced labor or, if you will, slave labor. 

I do not know specifically about gold. I do know that diamonds 

are exported out of Zimbabwe legally because the country is allowed to do so under the Kimberley Process, of which the United 

States is a part and perhaps could wield some influence there. And 

obviously, the companies that do so are very tightly connected to 

either the Russian or the South African Governments. We all know 

about the interaction between the South African Government, ANC 

government, and the ZANU–PF. So it is not difficult to imagine 

that there is a deal whereby some of the proceeds find themselves 

flowing back into the country, specifically to the Zimbabwean military and the top echelons of the ZANU–PF. 

Mr. MUCHENA. Thank you, Chairman. I will just add, on the diamond sector, the national budget presented to Parliament last 

week indicated that the proceeds from diamonds was $41 million 

U.S., with about $8 million which are still supposed to be remitted. 

Now, if you look at the analysis that was done on the diamond sector, Zimbabwe is supposed to get at least $2 billion annually 

from its diamonds, in addition to the natural resources sector. So, 

clearly, there is a shortchanging that is going on, because the diamonds sector is not subjected to the extractive industry’s transparent initiatives or other processes that are enhancing revenue 

collection to final development imperatives in the country. So we 

will continue to be plagued and, in fact, threatened by the problems 

of the resource curse, when the richness of the country is starting 

to become a curse, unless there is a greater transparency on that 

front. 

On the trafficking person question, I think it mirrors the fact 

that Zimbabwe’s development indicated that it declined dramatiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:34 Dec 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\120210\62664 HFA PsN: SHIRL
46

cally. With an unemployment rate of 90 percent, with a poverty 

level of 95 percent, moving from 62 percent in 1995, clearly the options for survival are diminishing, and people become vulnerable to 

sharks and other people who are dealing in persons. And I think 

none but renewal of political institutions of government, effective 

policing and employment creation will stop the process that you 

have described. Thank you. 

Mr. MASAMVU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to add on to what Mr. Muchena has commented on the issue 

of diamonds, I think the issue that most of the inventory itself is 

now held in private is actually—it is a cover. And that is one in 

a way where you actually call these sanctions-busting measures are 

actually, because most of these companies, you may be surprised, 

their identity is not being exposed for the simple reason that some 

of these companies may actually be coming from countries which 

has imposed restrictive measures also on Zimbabwe in terms of 

doing business. 

So the issue of the involvement of these—the local fair is sort of 

a coercive approach on how these measures which are in place are 

being implemented shows—is actually a sort of trip down to the 

issues of the sale of diamonds in terms of transparency. 

And to the extension that this has actually provided a war chest 

for the ZANU–PF in the upcoming elections that they are fully involved in, that most of the claims, they are actually—you know, 

most of the other side of the government, like the ministers, even 

the Finance Minister, even the Prime Minister himself does not 

have the firsthand sort of understanding of how operations around 

the diamonds are being conducted. And this has actually given an 

avenue to actually to ZANU–PF to actually build its war chest, 

ready to face the election head on, fully resolved and then negotiate 

thereafter. 

So actually you can actually see the issue of the diamonds has 

actually become like the weapon which actually is going to determine the political dynamics in the next 6 months. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Smith, in terms of your questions one and 

two, I absolutely share your abhorrence of that situation that you 

have described, and I think that whatever policy prescriptions we 

explore in terms of existing legislation and how we move into the 

future here has got to take that into account. 

I have worked in conflicted countries throughout Africa. We all 

know that human trafficking and the denial of religious freedoms 

are often a result of failed societies; of the loss of the normal sanctions of society; the destruction of family; the undercutting of the 

moral authority of church, of school; of the destruction of local governance. It is not just criminal—well, it is criminal elements, but 

they are able to feed on destruction of society, and it is an awful 

thing. It is happening in other countries throughout Africa and 

throughout the world. It is something that I am very glad you have 

mentioned and I think needs to be focused on in terms of the recovery of the society. We talk about renewal, in quotation marks. 

There is no renewal if we don’t address this question. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. What we are going to do is, I would like 

to ask Ms. Woolsey if she would ask her questions and the panel 

to think of the answer to hers, and would ask Mr. Flake if he 

47

would also ask his questions before they answer. The Members will 

have the right to leave when they feel it is appropriate. We only 

have 4 minutes left. However, there are over 370 Members who 

have not voted yet, which is the key number. So we will leave it 

up to them. I usually stay longer than most, but I used to be fast. 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, all of you, here 

is my question. 

Through the lens of the people of Zimbabwe, have there been any 

improvements over the last 18 months or 10 years in general, and 

if so, who has led those improvements, or who have impeded those 

improvements, and how vulnerable are the programs themselves, 

and how vulnerable are the providers of those programs? 

And let us use health care, if you will, as our example, health 

care, maternal health care, HIV/AIDS, cholera. What is happening 

with those concerns, and are they being treated, and how best can 

we, meaning the United States, the U.N., the EU, get Zimbabwe 

healthy again? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. I would actually follow up on some of the questions 

with regard to mining and, really, the dynamic between the Finance Minister, controlled by the opposition, and the military, who 

control and seemingly funded back through. But I mean, if we 

are—I think the budget was introduced last week, $2.7 million. It 

was indicated by the Finance Minister that that represented all domestic revenue sources, not aid from the outside. How true is that? 

I mean, and is mining, you mentioned it could be as high as $2 

billion. That is an annual figure, it could be? And we are only capturing $40 million or so there? Is it assumed that that amount is 

being plowed back into the military? Is that kind of the infrastructure, and if so, how in the world can you go into an election season 

satisfying the strictures that have been laid out in terms of ensuring that it is free or fair when you have that kind of money plowed 

back into the security structure that is controlled by Mugabe or 

ZANU–PF? 

So, anyway, that was kind of the questions I was going to ask. 

I will be satisfied with that. After we come back, I guess. 

Mr. PAYNE. Gentlemen, you may answer any way you would like. 

Mr. TUPY. I will try to answer, first of all, Congressman Flake. 

Reports that I have seen suggested hundreds of millions of dollars annually are being plowed back into the military and to the 

top party members and also for the police force. Both of these, the 

military and the police, are obviously absolutely vital. Their behavior will be vital in terms of whether the election will be free or fair. 

And in answer to your second question, no, I don’t believe that 

the election under these circumstances can be free and fair, especially if the threat of violence by the repressive state apparatus is 

going to hang over the opposition as the sword of Damocles. 

And to you, Congresswoman Woolsey, the improvements in terms 

of health care and welfare in general in Zimbabwe happen because 

of simply the ability and the willingness of the Zimbabwean people 

to basically take care of themselves. They were prohibited from 

doing so by hyperinflation, which ran to trillions of percent, and 

48

also by political violence. Once hyperinflation was subdued and 

they were able to deal in a normal currency, such as the U.S. dollar 

and the South African rand, and once political violence had subsided, people returned to what they do best, which is to improve 

their lot. And so we are seeing gradual increases in welfare in 

Zimbabwe, and I would expect those to continue until the political 

situation doesn’t become unbearable again. 

Mr. MUCHENA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would start by answering Congresswoman Woolsey’s question. 

I think that there has been a lot of improvement. I think that is 

what we started by saying that there has been dramatic improvement in the 2 years since the Global Political Agreement was consummated, and specifically on the sectors that you talked about, 

health, education. 

Keep in mind that Zimbabwe has a proud investment record in 

education and health on the continent, with leading industries, up 

until 2000, and the continent started to dramatically collapse. But 

in the last year alone, all schools that had been closed in 2007 and 

2008 were opened, which was good. We also had health sectors 

opening up, and we also had cholera which had been totally eliminated, which had become a scourge. 

So there has been improvement. This improvement is now being 

affected by the threat to the return of the old order. I think that 

is the point we are making. 

In terms of the economy, the mining sector, the total contribution 

of the mining sector of the budget was 44 percent, and that not 

only includes diamonds, it also includes gold, platinum, and so on. 

And as a result of the restoration of stability, we started to see 

profits in the mining sector. So what needs to actually happen is 

a much more predictable economic management system and economic government system to fully exploit the opportunity of a 

buoyant mining sector in Zimbabwe which can actually finance the 

budget. 

This has been why Minister Biti could not rely on foreign dollars 

coming in the budget because the vote of credit was expected to be 

at $800 million. They have only mobilized $200 million in the last 

year. So he decided, no, let us go it alone. This is why I am saying 

60 percent of the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis can be done 

domestically, through reforming laws, political reforms and so on, 

and the international can accompany that progress. And I think 

part of the record is being indicated in the Minister of Finance’s 

conduct, including ensuring that the government and central bank 

is quarantined to a more central governance role than what they 

have been doing in the last couple of years. Thank you. 

Mr. MASAMVU. Thank you, Chairman. 

Just to keep on quickly to what Mr. Muchena has said, I think 

the general attitude of the people of Zimbabwe is really seeing the 

benefits of the inclusive government in the past 18 months. To an 

extent, this is the feeling which is driving the general dislike of 

having, let’s call it a premature call for an election. The people 

wanted this inclusive government to be sustained for a period of 

maybe 2 to for the next 3 years or so to allow the green shoots 

which are happening in the noneconomic front to actually sort of 

be sustained. 

49

We probably will see a vast improvement in education, you know, 

in terms of schools, textbooks, and all in the collective of the 

human talent plans extended especially at the onset of the inclusive government. 

I believe this is what—actually, when people look at the next 

election coming, the fears are for a relapse to the pre-March 2008 

where the shops were not in food. Right now there is a growing 

fear that if this election talk reaches a crescendo after the new 

year, we are actually going to see a situation where there will be 

a situation of small capital flight which was in going out, shortages 

of food because of political instability. 

No wonder why is what we have been restating on this panel, 

that what needs to be done in the next 6 months in terms of doing 

a course correction in terms of engaging with South Africa and 

SADC is to go to villages and to answer is Zimbabwe ready for an 

election? And I think this should be looked into what context of the 

reforms and the need to have the country to heal before any other 

election can be held. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. A quick response. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yeah, to Congresswoman Woolsey’s question. 

First of all, when you asked it, you said, has there been any improvements in the last 10 years and last 18 months? Very, very important to keep those time frames in mind because of the last 10 

years, absolutely not; in the last 18 months, yes. It is not coincidental, and it has been mentioned that that is coinciding with the 

September 2008 GPA and the formulation of the coalition government. 

You asked who and how any improvements that have taken 

place have come about. In these last 3 years or so approximately 

years since GPA, there has been an increased flow of foreign aid, 

around $800 million a year, and that has been very targeted, not 

through government; very targeted in health, education, water, 

sanitation. So it really has been of great assistance, I believe, and 

created the situation of improvement. 

The Ministry of Finance, already been discussed or reiterated, attacking the inflation problem, attacking the—decoupling the currency and going back to U.S. dollar basis has really helped, but 

what Dr. Tupy said is very important. The people are resilient. I 

think what you are seeing here is also reflected in their hope for 

the future; not just their resilience and relying on themselves and 

getting by and getting through, but because they see hope for the 

future, there is a renewed spirit. Obviously that hope can be 

dashed very easily if the coalition government doesn’t work, if the 

elections don’t come about, Constitution isn’t put in place. But I 

think we are seeing that rising aspiration now as people are hopeful that things may come right. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me certainly thank the panel. Unfortunately we 

are going to have to leave in a minute, but I also agree that I think 

Zimbabwe has a great future if we can get over this hurdle of the 

next 6 months are important, if we can move to a new Zimbabwe. 

Let me ask for unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

50

Once again, let me thank the witnesses for being here. It is my 

hope that H.R. 5971 will be seriously considered, and that the U.S. 

policy will take full advantage of the window of opportunity in 

Zimbabwe. 

Thank you all again for your testimony, and the meeting stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

52


62664n.eps
53

Æ


62664m.eps