Online Reporter
Gibson Nyikadzino
Now that the United States has pronounced its new diplomatic approach when engaging Zimbabwe, this policy shift sounds surprising as much as it sounds unbelievable considering that the two countries have had an uneasy relationship for nearly 25 years.
This is where diplomacy comes in.
Diplomacy is not merely an act of negotiating but embodies the strategic art of communication and relationship-building to shape state interactions.
The intentions of the two countries have to be communicated clearly on how this relationship can be nurtured.
Ultimately, the tough part in this process is always in attempting to win over or trust either a rival competitor or perceived adversary to align and recalibrate interests in order to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways.
While the US has signalled a noble, new approach to foster relations with Zimbabwe by focusing more on trade and investment opportunities, and moving away from donor assistance, the materialisation of these prospects need to be negotiated and may take time.
It will likely take years to see a fruition of the US intentions in this new path.
This means the US is presenting a new way to normalise relations with Zimbabwe, which have been frosty for a long time.
The Second Republic has already demonstrated through its engagement and re-engagement policy that it is open to rapprochement.
Avoiding confrontations represents an attempt by the US to rebalance and recalibrate its interests at a time the world is moving towards multipolarity.
The US is now aware that there is a global convergence, commonality and single-mindedness towards multipolarity, hence it is an opportunity it has to work on itself through self-introspection.
To explain what this gesture means to Zimbabwe and its future interests needs a strong historical reflection to see whether the proposed diplomatic approach that the US is proposing is sustainable
Ideological variations, bad faith
A bit of history is instructive to put into perspective how the US policy shift can inform future relations between the two countries.
Harare and Washington have different foundational and ideological perspectives.
History does not forget.
Zimbabwe in 1980 was founded through the military overthrow of a racist colonial system that was characterised by plunder, segregation and the colonial subjugation of locals — a system the US supported.
The founding of the US, until its independence in 1776, has been littered with the dispossession, displacement and the erasure of indigenous groups that resided in that territory.
It was the US that was also involved in the slave trade, which involved Africans.
At the 1979 Lancaster Conference negotiations, the US administration of James Carter pledged to contribute a “substantial amount for a process of land redistribution” as an encouragement to the British government to give similar assurances.
Some reports indicate the US pledged US$2 billion. In 1982, the Ronald Reagan administration disavowed the pledge, citing it had no colonial commitments to Zimbabwe.
This has been interpreted as an act of bad faith, as until 1998, nothing had materialised when Zimbabwe held a land donor conference protesting against how the US and the British reneged on commitments they made.
In 2000, the US waded into the bilateral dispute between Harare and London.
It subsequently internationalised the dispute, launched propaganda warfare against Zimbabwe to alienate it from the international world and make it a pariah.
At one point, the US and Britain contemplated deploying boots on the ground in Zimbabwe.
Because of the military footprint characterising US foreign policy, today Zimbabwe’s fate could have been similar to Iraq’s or Libya’s. All this was to effect regime change.
From propaganda warfare and contemplating military invasion of Zimbabwe, the US later initiated economic warfare against this country through sanctions enacted in 2001.
This affected critical social services and economic sectors and made the economy “scream” to induce people to overthrow the Government.
From 2000, successive elections were scrutinised and condemned because the people elected and re-elected ZANU PF to represent their interests, something that was contrary to US expectations.
These instances are historical footnotes that can help frame how future relations between the US and Zimbabwe can be constructed or reconstructed.
The US policy shift will be influenced by many factors, chief among them ideological differences between the two states.
Hope for a win-win partnership
Although global political and social systems are forever changing, the relevance and importance of diplomacy as a tool of cooperation, settling disputes and resolving conflicts remains valid.
It is in this valid expression that, despite differences, both Zimbabwe and the US need to engage and share notes as equal sovereign states on how they can find a working solution to their almost 25-year uneasy relationship.
On the other hand, every American bears the consequences of the US’ militarised foreign policy that is too dominated by the military and too dependent on the generals and admirals who lead major overseas commands in “endless forever wars”.
This has had a negative impact on the domestic situation in the US.
Going beyond existing barriers that may hinder the smoothening of relations is what can be expected.
For Zimbabwe, the new approach by the US also means it has to relook its existing relations with other players, adjust to accommodate America only when interests are secured.
If not, probably Zimbabwe can engage the US at arm’s length to avoid disrupting existing relations.
In this case, diplomacy is an indispensable tool for both Zimbabwe and the US.
What has to be made clear is that Zimbabwe shall never fear to negotiate and will never negotiate in fear!
