admin
Hosia Mviringi-Correspondent
Foreign policy refers to a set of principles and guidelines that inform a nation’s attitude towards certain aspects of international relations.
These principles overlap such aspects as politics, economics/trade and inter-state and organisational relations.
Historical perspective
After independence, in the period between 1980-2013, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy was largely influenced by ground realities which compelled the country to work towards balancing relations between the capitalist West and the then Communist Eastern block of nations.
The post-war foreign policy was therefore driven by the conscious need to safeguard national as well as regional peace and security.
Security was an indispensable necessity for a country and region that was seeking to entrench stability as a pillar for economic growth.
Security formed a non-negotiable fundamental for socio-political and economic stability and development.
Thus the Zimbabwean foreign policy then had to strike a fine balance between security (siding with China and the Eastern countries) and economic prosperity which was evidenced by the reconciliation policy towards the erstwhile colonial West.
In the formative years of the Zimbabwean democracy, the policy had its challenges as South Africa was still the vanguard of capitalism on the continent. This meant that survival was never going to be easy for a newly independent, predominantly pro-Socialist Zimbabwe.
This reality prompted Zimbabwe to craft and influence policy strategies, for both Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to counter the threat posed by Apartheid South Africa to itself, other vulnerable neighbouring states, and the African continent at large.
However, despite the Western world beginning to view Zimbabwe with suspicion due to its pro-socialist policies, the country’s influence continued to grow as a leader in regional, continental and world geo-politics.
The country continued to be a leader, a voice and a model among third world and progressive nations.
Regrettably, it is this stance that earned the Southern African country the unenviable title of “pariah State” from the same Western countries that used to applaud its policies.
The political economy of the country then had an influential bearing on its foreign policy. About 10 years after independence, Zimbabwe adopted an Afrocentric approach to foreign relations.
As may be remembered, after independence, due to its geopolitical position, Harare became Southern African diplomatic hub, and a key player in frontline states’ endeavours to dismantle Apartheid and colonialism in South Africa and Namibia.
Zimbabwe then adopted a policy of non-alignment in international relations. So its policy then was influenced by the respect for self-determination, defence of national sovereignty, anti-imperialism, sanctity of life, equality of sovereign states and non-interference in affairs of sovereign states.
In essence, Zimbabwe influenced, informed and adhered to policy positions of SADC, the then Organisation of African Unity (now African Union), Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Commonwealth. That’s how far the influence of the country spanned, and probably still span today.
If one listens carefully to the foregoing account of the historical structure of Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy, it will be clear why every superpower in the world would want to impose their influence on the country’s foreign policy, either voluntarily or through use of soft power, as exemplified by the elaborate Look East policy, or forcibly or by use of hard power, as evidenced by unilateral economic sanctions by the imperial capitalist West, which continue to subsist today.
When Zimbabwe assumed a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council between 1984-92, as well as the Chair of NAM in 1986, she acquired unparalleled international relations stamina on the African continent.
As chair of the frontline states, Zimbabwe strongly led and advocated for the dismantling of apartheid system of governance in South Africa and imposition of sanctions on the regime South of the Limpopo. Now at this stage, it can be understandable why the attitude across the Limpopo shifts with the direction of the wind, depending on who is in control.
Each time the White monopoly capital get their hands on or closer to the levers, the attitude either becomes indignant or just completely indifferent towards Zimbabwe.
Perhaps it’s agreeable that the white capitalist powers down South have still got a bone to chew with the revolutionary government North of the Limpopo.
These are the historical realities that the nation has to face as a result of the Afrocentric Foreign Policy that is at the core of its engagement with the world.
Zimbabwe then became leader in the effort to liberate South Africa, Namibia and to ensure and secure other vulnerable Southern African States such as Mozambique, which were still under threat from the destabilisation policy of Apartheid South Africa.
In other words, Zimbabwe assumed the inevitable task of guarantor of Security, Peace and stability of the Southern African region. A position that continues to earn it enemies to date.
In fulfilment of virtues of its policy of non-interference, respect of the sanctity of life, self-determination and sovereignty of States, Zimbabwean security forces took part in up to fifty-eight UN-mandated peacekeeping missions in countries such as Kosovo, Somalia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1998 among others.
They also helped dispatch the RENAMO menace in Mozambique which had been orphaned by the Rhodesian security forces and had since been adopted at Independence by Apartheid South Africa.
Now it can be traced why Samora Machel had to die a painful death at the hands of the South African Apartheid regime. Maybe a story for another day.
These determined operations indeed earned Zimbabwe enemies far and wide as the peace missions directly and indirectly clashed with and crushed the interests of powerful capitalist nations who in most cases were involved in funding rebel activities in those war ravaged nations.
Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy has largely been very participatory, especially where the ideals of sanctity of life, self-determination, the sovereignty of States and non-interference, respect for rule of law and Constitutionalism were under threat. Between 1986-88 Zimbabwe clashed with the US policy of positive engagement with the apartheid South African regime. This led to the US and Britain freezing Aid to Zimbabwe in protest. The then US president, Ronald Reagan, had sounded alarm over Zimbabwe’s pro-socialist inclinations.
This is when Western planners began juggling with the idea of sponsoring an alternative political party in Zimbabwe whose foreign policy choices would be favourable. This culminated in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change exactly 10 years later. The MDC was formed specifically to scuttle Harare’s perceived iron-fisted foreign policy ideals. Therefore, it is and must be placed on record out there that the MDC opposition formations, in all their colours, are a foreign policy extension of the imperial Western powers.
The party was formed to neutralise what was perceived as too radical foreign policy thrust by Zimbabwe.
This assertion is well supported and corroborated by United States’ ZIDERA sanctions bill of 2001, which is unambiguously designed to support the MDC through various channels while attempting to suffocate ZANU PF.
Results of the formation of MDC are all over the place for those who care to look. It’s a whole topic we shall cover elsewhere. Today we are dealing with Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy and its implications.
Zimbabwe’s foreign policy has dealt successive blows to capitalist adventures on the African continent which in most cases are directly linked to destabilisation efforts through the funding of civil wars and military coups.
Fast forward to 2017
This could be termed as the year of a turnaround in as far as Zimbabwe’s foreign policy is concerned.
When President Mnangagwa took over, the country had to trudge along on a very delicate line. The country needed to balance its foreign policy evolution from a predominantly political to a more economic one.
So, without seeking to undo policy victories of the past, President Mnangagwa declared Zimbabwe’s Open for Business. He personally undertook numerous business trips around the world whose mission was to engage with and assure both political and business leaders and partners that Zimbabwe is indeed turning a new page, which is purely dedicated to business.
He declared that his term in office will be dedicated to forging strong open business alliances with nations, corporations, and individuals alike, who display honest zeal to invest in Zimbabwe, with no political strings attached.
He has lived up to his pledge to date.
Zimbabwe is Open for business is a mantra cleverly coined to dispel any fears and suspicions of the past.
This policy was to say, while we celebrate and preserve policy victories of the past, we now want to chart a new path that is characterised by very little politics and more economics, that is trade and investment. It emphasises more on the security of investment, ease of doing business, and structured incentives for investors.
It means that the nation feels more secure now and would want to consolidate its political gains and top it all up with a cherry of economic boom and bloom. The current policy is geared towards reintegration of the country into the family of nations while welcoming international investors.
Engagement and re-engagement with all countries of the world form the core of the Second Republic’s Foreign Policy thrust. It focuses on maximising economic value for the country in any encounters, engagement or exchanges with nations of the world.
It encourages the country’s diplomats to initiate overtures geared towards normalising relations even with the most volatile and hostile nations such as those that still maintain economic embargoes on the country. This current policy position has seen a re-orientation of diplomats and customisation of all consulates and embassies worldwide to cater for the needs of investors and tourists who may want to visit and invest in Zimbabwe.
Each consulate is challenged and empowered to prioritise and to make decisions that bear economic gain for the nation. This has been re-christened “Economic Diplomacy.”
Under this foreign policy trajectory, every citizen is challenged and empowered to be a worthy economic ambassador in all spheres of life so that the greater economic benefits.
Online Reporter