In the past few years Zimbabwe has been thrust at the centre of the geopolitical fight between the United States and China. This fight, and its consequences, is going unnoticed by the generality of Zimbabweans, thanks to an acquiescent media and a highly effective American strategy for Zimbabwe driven by US-funded non-governmental organisations.
But Zimbabweans should be scared, really scared, when the United States says it sees Zimbabwe “as a potential growth hub for southern Africa” and wishes to help the country “to fulfil its potential”. When the US says it wants to spread democracy and freedom to other countries, it really means it wishes to extend and consolidate its hegemonic influence and tighten its stranglehold on a unipolar world.
Former US ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray recently called on the US embassy in Zimbabwe to involve the US Congress in the transformation of the Zimbabwe into a development hub for southern Africa. He was critiquing a document called Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) for Zimbabwe, a document produced by the US embassy as a guide to its policy on dealing with the country.
Ray said: “Congress would likely be receptive to innovative approaches for partnering with a country known to have large deposits of rare earth metals that are used in the manufacture of electronics, batteries, and magnets. Members do not want these important resources to fall under the control and direction of major-power competitors.”
He describes the Zimbabwe government as having been “long hostile to US interests”.
God knows what “innovative approaches” means but all over the world the US has often used unsavoury methods to influence change in countries it considers hostile. Its regime change policy for Zimbabwe has been extant since the turn of the millennium,
The blueprint of the US thrust for Zimbabwe “to fulfil its potential” named the (ICS) approved on March 24 2022 is reminiscent of the Berlin Conference of 1884 at which European countries agreed to parcel out the continent of Africa among themselves in what became known as the “Scramble for Africa”. The Berlin Conference sought to end competition and conflict between European powers during the scramble by establishing international protocols for colonisation.
The US attended that conference as an observer. Africa was not represented.
The most important clause of that conference was the principle of “effective occupation”.
“The principle of effective occupation stated that powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they possessed them or had ‘effective occupation’: in other words, if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order. The colonial power could also make economic use of the colony.” [The Berlin Conference | World Civilizations I (HIS101) – Biel]
The ICS is America’s attempt at the “effective occupation” of Zimbabwe.
Just as the Scramble for Africa was triggered by Belgian King Leopold II’s creation of the Congo Free State from 1878 to 1885, America’s “scramble” for Zimbabwe was triggered by its fear that China’s inroads into the country would compromise its security interests in Zimbabwe and in the whole southern African region.
To gain international support the colonising powers at the Berlin Conference put on the façade that the parcelling out would benefit Africa.
“The conference also resolved to end slavery by African and Islamic powers, a move that many critics ridiculed as a humanitarian facade to garner international support; the resolution was non-binding. They also agreed to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain regions, and expressed concern for missionary activities.” [Biel]
America’s ICS is also couched in a humanitarian guise.
It claims that many of Zimbabwe’s developmental and economic challenges stem from poor governance, corruption, and a failure of the rule of law.
It says citizens need the opportunity and capability to meaningfully participate in development and democratic processes. So Zimbabwe must re-establish the rule of law and demonstrate respect for constitutionalism and human rights.
“The mission (the US Embassy) will support these ends by working with local civil society organisations while forging relationships with political, business, and government leaders who help bring citizen interests to key decision-makers.”
The veil of humanitarianism is further promoted by the assertion that the ICS will work to help marginalised communities.
“We will give particular attention to efforts that engage marginalised and scapegoated populations, such as, but not limited to, LGBTQI+ people, women, ethnically and politically marginalised peoples, and allies.”
Further, it claims that the country’s vast natural and human resources remain under-utilised.
“The Embassy will use development and emergency assistance to help Zimbabwe’s citizens and private sector address factors that inhibit inclusive economic growth and to expand livelihood opportunities, improve household nutrition, and strengthen coping mechanisms at household and community levels.”
Hidden behind this humanitarian façade is the real reason behind America’s scramble for Zimbabwe: the country’s strategic interest to the United States and its fear that it has lost Zimbabwe to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
The ICS says: “The PRC has expanded its influence here, and with its ‘no-questions-asked’ approach has become an indispensable bankroller and enabler of GoZ [Government of Zimbabwe] bad behaviour. In the PRC, the GoZ has found a wealthy patron that will never criticise its human rights record or push for difficult reforms and will gladly do business in a way that enriches ruling party elites. In return for its largesse, the PRC earns near-unfettered access to Zimbabwean natural resources,” and, according to former US ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray, the “unfettered access” extends to “base minerals that are critical to the global clean-energy transition.”
China has taken centre stage in Lithium mining in Zimbabwe.
The geopolitical conflict between the US and China in southern Africa is escalating and the latter seems to be having the upper hand. But the US is fighting back. Zimbabwe is finding itself at the epicentre of this conflict being surrounded by countries that are partial to US interests.
The US is the largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe’s eastern neighbour, Mozambique, providing over $560 million in assistance annually, according to the US embassy in Maputo.
On April 26 2022 the United States Africa Command (Africom) announced that it had set up an office in the US Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia, Zimbabwe’s northern neighbour . According to Africom Brigadier General Peter Bailey, deputy director for strategy, engagement and programmes, the Office of Security Cooperation would be based in the US Embassy building [in Lusaka], according to a report in the Mail &Guardian. [https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/opinion/2022-06-30-is-the-us-establishing-a-military-base-in-zambia/]
The official line from the government of Zambia is that the US has not established a military base in Zambia but reports say the US used a similar trick to have a base in Ghana.
“In Ghana, where a defence cooperation agreement was signed between the two countries in May 2018, the United States had initially said that it was merely creating a warehouse and an office for its military, which then turned out to mean that the US military was taking charge of one of the three airport terminals at Accra airport and has since used it as its base of operations in West Africa.” [https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/opinion/2022-06-30-is-the-us-establishing-a-military-base-in-zambia/]
The US already has a military base in Botswana and in September 2022 conducted a Joint Combined Exchange Training with the Botswana Defence Force, according to an Africom report. [https://www.dvidshub.net/news/432569/us-africa-command-special-operations-forces-train-alongside-partners-botswana]
It is in the US’s strategic interest that Zimbabwe becomes an ally like its neighbours, but the latter’s “Look East policy” has thrown it into the hands of China, and the US doesn’t like this. Add to that the fact that Zimbabwe’s southern neighbour, South Africa, is a founding member of BRICS, an intergovernmental organisation comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This year Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the organisation which aims to counter the US’s hegemony over the world. Zimbabwe is interested in joining BRICS. President Emmerson Mnangagwa addressed the latest BRICS meeting in Durban in August 2023 where he expressed his admiration for progress the organisation had achieved which he hopes would aid Zimbabwe’s development as it battles economic sanctions imposed on it by the US at the turn of the millennium.
In the ICS the US embassy acknowledges that “Zimbabwe presents a more challenging environment for US interests” because allegedly “President Mnangagwa has consolidated control of the ruling party and of government institutions, captured the judiciary, and marginalised the opposition.” This is the motivation for the ICS, namely to ensure Zimbabwe does not fall into the hands of America’s “major-power competitors”.
But the scope of the strategy is nothing short of the “effective occupation” of Zimbabwe because it will spread its tentacles across all sectors of the country.
“Zimbabwe’s strategic importance to the United States is as a potential growth hub for southern Africa. To help Zimbabwe fulfil its potential, the Embassy invests in health, inclusive economic growth and resilience and perhaps most importantly, improved governance and a strong civil society,” says the ICS.
But the clarion call by former Ambassador Ray to directly involve the US Congress in Zimbabwean affairs is not only ominous but reeks of interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. The same Congress which imposed Zdera can only escalate the situation if the ICS follows Ray’s advice.
Ray says: “The US Embassy Harare should to pursue the transformation of Zimbabwe into a growth hub for Southern Africa as a mission security interest.”
It up to journalists now to unravel what the phrase “a mission security interest” means.
Ray concludes his statement by saying: “Congress should play an active role in the planning process to ensure congressional support and resources to achieve this objective.”
He is urging for the “effective occupation” of Zimbabwe, not figuratively but in actuality.
Nevanji Madanhire 