US policy on Africa exposes Zim
THE United States early this month launched a revised strategy towards subSaharan Africa where the superpower is looking at galvanising its influence on the continent.
However, political observers have been interested in understanding Zimbabwe’s stance with regards the new American strategy as it pokes holes in Zimbabwe’s current political position.
Harare’s relations with Washington have been tumultuous since the late former president Robert Mugabe embarked on a controversial land reform programme at the turn of the century, while President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration has been reluctant to change the status quo.
e relations between the two countries seem to have been further strained with Zimbabwe leaning towards the US’s competitors, Russia and China, whom the country turned to after the global superpower imposed a sanctions regime blamed by Zanu PF for the country’s worsening economic situation.
en comes the US policy towards the sub-Saharan region where pointers are seemingly directed at Zimbabwe whose policies are opposite to what the superpower is looking for as it seeks to strengthen its influence in Africa.
According to the US, the sub-Saharan region is “critical to advancing” its global priorities as it has one of the world’s fastest growing populations, largest free trade areas, most diverse ecosystems and one of the largest regional voting groups in the United Nations.
e policy, however, states that “despite the strong popular support in sub-Saharan Africa, democracy remains in short supply”, noting a string of military coups and “democratic setbacks” risking further deteriorating governance and security.
However, according to academic and political commentator, Alexander Rusero, the policy has a defined position and perception on Zimbabwe dating back to 2001 and Harare will be treated differently from other African countries.
In 2001, then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named Zimbabwe amongst America's six identified outposts of tyranny in the league of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, among others.
“You may also reckon that Zimbabwe is further exceptional since a whole domestic law of America is named after Zimbabwe in the form of Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (Zidera).
“In the current context of animosity and rising tension between US and Russia over Ukraine on one hand and US and China over Taiwan on another, this becomes more complex because of Zimbabwe's strong ties with both Russia and China,” Rusero said.
“America has a deliberate policy of not distinguishing between enemies and friends of enemies and thus Zimbabwe will for the umpteenth time be regarded as an enemy state by the USA.”
Rusero added that the new policy will come as a severe blow to the Mnangagwa government's re-engagement effort.
South African-based political commentator, Ricky Mukonza said the policy was detailed in its four pillars; Foster Openness and Open Societies, Deliver Democratic and Security Dividends, Advance Pandemic Recovery and Economic Opportunity and Support Conservation, Climate Adaptation, and Just Energy Transition
“Are all relevant for Zimbabwe? Unfortunately, this means Zimbabwe is unlikely to be engaged in any of the official engagements to discuss these issues at state-tostate level or other low level diplomatic engagement,” he said.
“Zimbabwe might also be fatigued of being treated like a distant pariah partner and Mnangagwa’s administration might put a brave face and middle finger publicly although privately they want Washington to like and speak to them.
“e major sticking point is on open societies and democracy. Zimbabwe will unlikely be a standard of progressive measure or conduct, if Malawi and Zambia are deemed to be examples as this measure is on elections and freedom of expression and civil liberties, among others.
“e other danger is the US compares backsliding or undemocratic countries as those closer to China and Russia. is means tensions will continue as Harare will not decide between China-Russia and US, it’s a false choice for them, and also for Africans as it infantilises African government agency,” Mukonza added.
He, however, noted that while the policy was a major development for Africa, there was no continental agenda to engage with the US, China or Russia.
“is means that African countries negotiate individual positions under the banner of being Africans. Democracy as a standard is accepted by African states, which is why coups and fraudulent elections are being shunned more, so Africa is not scared of these conversations,” Mukonza said.
“For Zimbabwe, it’s another strategy that will not bring much until there is demonstrated progress on the human rights front as the sanctions regime will impact on political or financial discussions of any kind. Government-to-government cooperation remains limited.”
Foreign Affairs and International Trade ministry spokesperson Livit Mugejo had a different opinion indicating that the US wanted to intensify cooperation with Africa, adding that the government welcomed the policy as it was in line with its re-engagement efforts.
“We seek to be a friend to all and an enemy of none. Regarding business cooperation, we are open for business,” Mugejo said.
Zimbabwe is heading towards a seemingly tough election period and the US policy will put the country on the spotlight, especially when its human rights and democratic processes are assessed by the global world.