ZIMBABWE DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC
RECOVERY ACT
OF 2001
(Extensions of Remarks -
December 05, 2001)
SPEECH OF HON.
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, December 4, 2001
* Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, at the international
Relations Committee meeting of November 28, 2001,
which considered the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic
Recovery Act of 2001, I asked a question of my
colleagues who were vociferously supporting this
misdirected piece of legislation: ``Can anyone
explain how the people in question who now have
the land in question in Zimbabwe got title to
the land?''
* My query was met with a deafening silence.
Those who knew did not want to admit the truth
and those who didn't know should have known--that
the land was stolen from its indigenous peoples
through the British South Africa Company and any
``titles'' to it were illegal and invalid. Whatever
the reason for their silence, the answer to this
question is the unspoken but real reason for why
the United States Congress is now concentrating
its time and resources on squeezing an economically-devastated
African state under the hypocritical guise of
providing a ``transition to democracy.''
* Zimbabwe is Africa's second-longest stable
democracy. It is multi-party. It had elections
last year where the opposition, Movement for Democratic
Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It
has an opposition press which vigorously criticizes
the government and governing party. It has an
independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary
to the wishes of the governing party. Zimbabwe
is not without troubles, but neither is the United
States. I have not heard anyone proposing a United
States Democracy Act following last year's Presidential
electoral debacle. And if a foreign country were
to pass legislation calling for a United States
Democracy Act which provided funding for United
States opposition parties under the fig leaf of
``Voter Education,'' this body and this country
would not stand for it.
* There are many de jure and de facto one-party
states in the world which are the recipients of
support of the United States government. They
are not the subject of Congressional legislative
sanctions. To any honest observer, Zimbabwe's
sin is that it has taken the position to right
a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to
return its land to its people. The Zimbabwean
government has said that a situation where 2 percent
of the population owns 85 percent of the best
land is untenable. Those who presently own more
than one farm will no longer be able to do so.
* When we get right down to it, this legislation
is nothing more than a formal declaration of United
States complicity in a program to maintain white-skin
privilege. We can call it an ``incentives'' bill,
but that does not change its essential ``sanctions''
nature. It is racist and against the interests
of the masses of Zimbabweans. In the long-run
the Zimbabwe Democracy Act will work against the
United States having a mutually beneficial relationship
with Africa.
###