Zimbabwe Forced to Shift Alliances as U.S. Conditions on Debt Relief Threaten Economic Recovery

Commentary by Modester Kamupinda

The recent comments by U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Pamela Tremont, have stirred significant debate regarding the U.S.’s stance on resuming debt resolution talks with Zimbabwe. In a Reuters interview, Tremont declared that Washington would consider rejoining the talks only if Zimbabwe shows substantial progress in democracy and governance. The U.S. pulled out of the debt talks, which were led by AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina, in January 2024 due to concerns over the integrity of Zimbabwe’s 2023 elections.

“We are looking forward to new democracy and governance indicators that will give us the sense of where the government is, that is its democracy and governance pathway so that we return to the table and continue these talks,” Tremont emphasized U.S.’s conditional approach. However, signals a troubling consequences as a result of  its potential impact on Zimbabwe’s economic recovery, bilateral relations, and political tensions in Zimbabwe.

Critics argue that prioritizing immediate economic relief over governance reforms could better address Zimbabwe’s urgent humanitarian needs. The country faces severe economic hardships, with high levels of poverty, unemployment, health disparities, lack of basic services, and very migration of Zimbabwe’s youthful population and skilled labor. Swift financial assistance could alleviate these pressing issues and provide much-needed support to Zimbabwe’s struggling population.

Skeptics of the U.S.’s conditionality approach point out that imposing political conditions on financial aid does not always lead to genuine reforms. Case studies across developing states show that governments often comply superficially with such conditions to access funds without enacting real systemic changes. This can result in a cycle of dependency with limited actual progress in governance and democracy.

Conditioning aid on governance reforms also risks exacerbating political tensions and instability in Zimbabwe. Governments under pressure to enact rapid changes may face resistance from entrenched interests, potentially leading to social unrest or political backlash. Such instability could further complicate Zimbabwe’s path to economic recovery and undermine efforts to establish long-term stability.

Imposing conditions on aid can be perceived as a challenge to a nation’s sovereignty. Respecting Zimbabwe’s right to self-determination and allowing it to set its own reform agenda, with international support and encouragement, could lead to more genuine and lasting changes. This respect for sovereignty fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the reform process within Zimbabwe.

The U.S.’s conditionality approach to financial assistance has strained relations with Zimbabwe. In response, Zimbabwe has increasingly turned to Russia, China, and BRICS nations for support. China has become a major investor in Zimbabwe’s infrastructure and mining sectors, while Russia’s involvement focuses on mining and military cooperation. This pivot is Zimbabwe’s strategy to seek financial aid and political support from countries offering less stringent conditions compared to Western powers .

This realignment impacts broader African geopolitics by diminishing Western influence and contributes to Russia-China agenda of a more multipolar world order. With increasing investments from China and Russia, and strategic partnerships through BRICS, African nations like Zimbabwe are diversifying their international alliances. This shift not only enhances African countries’ bargaining power but also contributes to regional integration and reduces dependency on any single external actor, shaping Africa’s future in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

A gradual, incremental approach to reforms by the United States of America might be more realistic and achievable. Sudden, sweeping changes can be unrealistic and unsustainable, whereas supporting incremental improvements can build a solid foundation for long-term stability and development. This approach allows for necessary adjustments and capacity building for enduring reforms without a grave impact on US’s foreign policy trajectory in the current status quo.