Online Reporter
Kuda Bwititi in Beijing, China
ON Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping met his United States counterpart, Donald Trump.
The meeting, held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Busan, South Korea, was more than a diplomatic engagement between superpowers but a master class in statecraft that holds profound, immediate lessons for nations like Zimbabwe.
In his remarks to Trump, one of President Xi’s core messages was that the two countries need to pursue “dialogue over confrontation.”
He noted that the diversity of the two giant nations means that they cannot always agree on everything, but they need to deliberate and iron out differences for the greater good.
Back home in Zimbabwe, China’s Ambassador Zhou Ding had, a week earlier, made a statement on understanding and navigating the complexities of the overwhelmingly flourishing, yet occasionally fraught, Zim-Sino relationship.
For Zimbabwe, a nation deeply embedded in the architecture of South-South cooperation with China, the philosophy is not a distant geopolitical concept but a practical manual for safeguarding its national interests while managing an indispensable partnership.
The symbolism of the China-US meeting in Busan cannot be overstated. Here are the world’s two largest economies, locked in a strategic competition with inevitable points of friction, consciously choosing the path of dialogue.
When giants, whose interests are often opposed, can sit down to “ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-US relations,” then a smaller power must be even more strategic and deliberate in its management of bilateral ties.
While Zimbabwe’s friendship with China is widely recognised and cherished, there have also been waves of misconceptions and what Ambassador Zhou referred to as “systematic smears against our precious partnership.”
The Ambassador observed that across social media and some segments of the press, a troubling narrative that is shaped not by facts, but by preconceived prejudices, persists.
“These voices may not represent the majority, but they are loud enough to mislead the public,” he said.
In light of these waves, the example from President Xi and Trump’s meeting is instructive.
Just as the US and China have established channels for in-depth exchange of views on important economic and trade issues, Zimbabwe must leverage its diplomatic structures to address grievances firmly and transparently, seeking justice and reform.
Social media voices that have nefarious agendas must not be allowed to win, as that would ultimately be self-defeating to the national interest.
The goal, as mirrored from the APEC meeting, is not to ignore problems but to finalise the follow-up steps as soon as possible and ensure that the common understandings are effectively upheld and implemented.
Ambassador Zhou’s speech at the National Journalism and Media Awards served as the direct application of the “dialogue over confrontation” principle to the Zimbabwean context.
He acknowledged criticisms against delinquent Chinese nationals, saying these must be tackled head-on.
“When talking about China-Zimbabwe relations, we don’t have to only sing praises or only highlight flaws,” he said.
The Ambassador addressed the three primary critiques levelled against China.
He talked about the allegation that China is pursuing “neo-colonialism,” distinguishing between colonial imposition and invited investment. Colonial powers, he argued, “never arrive by invitation, nor do they abide by local laws.”
In contrast, Chinese companies operate within Zimbabwe’s legal framework, responding to its “Open for Business” policy.
If Chinese investments are creating jobs and paying taxes as invited, the relationship is one of partnership. If there are breaches, it is the strength of Zimbabwe’s judiciary and regulatory bodies that will determine whether it is a relationship of equals, the Ambassador argued.
Second was the accusation that China has put Zimbabwe under a “debt trap”.
Ambassador Zhou explained that Chinese debt constitutes only 16 percent of Zimbabwe’s total external debt. He asked a piercing question: “If China’s loans are a trap, what does that make the 84 percent owed to other creditors?”
The focus for critics should be on holistic debt management, not on singling out one partner based on a contested narrative.
Third, and most pertinent to recent events, is the admission of labour and environmental issues. Ambassador Zhou did not deny the problems.
Instead, he contextualised them. Citing Government data, he said disputes involving Chinese firms accounted for 7, 5 percent of total cases, arguing that these are not systemic failures but periodic cases.
He contended that wages in Chinese-invested factories are “significantly higher than the industry average.”
The essence of dialogue is acknowledging flaws while presenting solutions.
Wisdom emanating from Busan and Harare converges on a single, powerful strategy that mature partnerships are forged not in the absence of problems, but in the manner of resolving them.
The China-US model shows that even rivals to the title of the world’s largest economy can choose collaboration over conflict for the greater good.
For Zimbabwe, whose developmental aspirations are inextricably linked to its relationship with China, this is not an abstract ideal but a strategic imperative. The path forward lies in emulating this approach, eschewing the simplicity of confrontation for the complexity of sustained, principled dialogue.
Through engaging with China transparently on disputes and focusing on the long-term, win-win partnership that underpins the flourishing Zim-Sino ties, Zimbabwe can ensure that its relationship with China continues to sail steadily forward.
Zim-Sino relations must navigate through any storm.
