Donald Trump’s return to the White House is stirring discussions worldwide, especially in Africa. For Zimbabwe, Trump’s potential victory in the U.S. election carries significant implications. During his previous term, Trump’s policies towards Africa were largely characterised by limited engagement, which impacted Zimbabwe’s economic, political, and diplomatic landscape. As Zimbabwe faces a set of persistent challenges—economic instability, political contention, and a need for foreign investment—a Trump victory reinforces or reshapes the country’s relationship with the United States. Here’s an analysis of how a Trump win could affect Zimbabwe, for better or worse.
By Brighton Musonza
Limited Diplomatic Engagement and Reduced Aid
Trump’s foreign policy stance is often marked by pragmatism and prioritisation of direct U.S. interests, embodied in his “America First” mantra. During his previous term, his administration showed minimal interest in engaging deeply with Zimbabwe and other African nations unless there was a direct benefit to the U.S. This policy could continue, meaning less diplomatic engagement with Zimbabwe. In contrast to the Biden administration, which has maintained open dialogue and provided some developmental support, Trump’s return could limit Zimbabwe’s access to U.S. aid and support, especially in areas like health, education, and infrastructure.
If Trump’s approach remains hands-off, Zimbabwe may need to find new ways to navigate its economic challenges, possibly turning to other partners, such as China and the European Union. The impact of a reduced U.S. presence could also affect Zimbabwe’s public health sector, where U.S. aid has traditionally supported programs for HIV, malaria, and maternal health. A less supportive U.S. administration could strain resources, pushing Zimbabwe to explore regional or non-traditional funding sources.
The U.S.-China Rivalry: An Opportunity for Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe’s relationship with the U.S. has often been constrained by human rights concerns, sanctions, and allegations of corruption within Zimbabwe’s leadership. In response, Zimbabwe has increasingly aligned itself with China, its “all-weather friend,” for trade, infrastructure, and development support. Trump’s hardline approach towards China could mean increased competition in Africa, particularly if the U.S. seeks to counterbalance China’s influence. However, if Trump opts to limit U.S. involvement, Zimbabwe’s reliance on China may deepen, leaving fewer opportunities for diplomatic diversity.
Trump’s U.S.-China rivalry may present a strategic opportunity for Zimbabwe to leverage its geopolitical position. By balancing relationships with both superpowers, Zimbabwe could secure investment from both nations, potentially fostering infrastructure development, mining projects, and job creation. However, this strategy would require careful diplomacy, as alienating either power could have economic consequences. Zimbabwe’s leaders would need to assess the country’s long-term development goals and make calculated choices on who they align with—and when.
Economic Sanctions and Human Rights Stance
The U.S. has maintained targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe since the early 2000s, citing human rights abuses, electoral manipulation, and corruption. Trump showed little interest in modifying these sanctions during his first term, and there’s no clear indication he would change this stance if re-elected. In fact, Trump’s focus on nationalism and prioritising U.S. domestic concerns might mean a more rigid sanctions policy, with even less engagement on reform or relief.
For Zimbabwe, this would mean that the path to removing sanctions remains steep, as Trump’s administration is unlikely to prioritise Zimbabwe’s reform processes. This stance could stymie economic growth, as the sanctions continue to limit Zimbabwe’s access to global financial markets and hinder its efforts to secure investment. Zimbabwe’s leaders may respond by intensifying domestic economic reforms to attract investment from other regions, or by strengthening alliances with countries that do not impose similar restrictions, such as Russia and the Middle Eastern nations. However, this may also isolate Zimbabwe further from Western economies.
The Impact on Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Sector and Trade
Under Trump’s previous administration, trade policies were aimed primarily at benefiting U.S. industries and farmers. His administration rarely prioritised African agricultural exports or sought to expand the U.S.-Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allows duty-free access for certain African goods to the U.S. market. Zimbabwe, with its agrarian economy, could suffer from a lack of engagement in this area if Trump does not renew AGOA or shows little interest in trade opportunities with Zimbabwe.
If Trump remains uninterested in trade agreements that benefit African countries, Zimbabwe might struggle to find competitive markets for its agricultural exports. This could push Zimbabwe to seek alternative trade partnerships within Africa or look to Asian markets to make up for the lost opportunities. However, this shift would require investment in Zimbabwe’s agriculture to meet the standards and demands of these new markets. It could also motivate Zimbabwe to accelerate the regional integration of African economies, positioning the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as a key vehicle for trade diversification.
Climate Change Policies and Environmental Impact
Zimbabwe is highly vulnerable to climate change, with frequent droughts impacting agricultural productivity and access to clean water. Under Biden, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement, contributing to global climate finance that Zimbabwe, along with other African nations, relies on to fund climate adaptation and mitigation strategies. Trump’s return could mean a reversal of U.S. climate commitments, which would have severe implications for countries like Zimbabwe that are disproportionately affected by climate change.
If Trump scales back U.S. involvement in international climate action, Zimbabwe may lose access to essential funding and resources needed for sustainable development. This could exacerbate Zimbabwe’s environmental challenges and hinder its ability to adopt renewable energy solutions or combat deforestation. However, it might also prompt Zimbabwe to intensify partnerships with Europe and other environmentally focused allies. Alternatively, Zimbabwe may need to focus more on national policies that promote sustainable agriculture and climate resilience, a challenge given its limited resources but one that could foster innovation and adaptation at a local level.
Zimbabwe’s Democratic Development and Human Rights Record
Trump’s administration placed limited emphasis on democracy promotion and human rights in Africa, often choosing stability and economic interests over democratic reforms. For Zimbabwe’s government, which has faced criticism over electoral practices, media censorship, and alleged human rights abuses, a lack of scrutiny from the U.S. could be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, less pressure might allow the government to govern without external intervention; on the other, it could embolden practices that stall democratic progress.
While Trump’s approach may offer short-term relief from external scrutiny, it could impact Zimbabwe’s long-term development if it signals to the international community that Zimbabwe’s governance issues aren’t being addressed. This might deter Western investors concerned about governance standards and human rights, limiting Zimbabwe’s ability to attract foreign direct investment. On the other hand, without U.S. involvement, Zimbabwe might take this opportunity to focus on internal reconciliation and reform, although achieving this without external accountability could be challenging.
In Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Path
A second Trump presidency could force Zimbabwe to rethink its relationship with the U.S. and explore new partnerships. While a reduced U.S. presence may allow Zimbabwe greater autonomy, it would also bring the challenge of securing critical resources for development, trade, and climate resilience. Zimbabwe’s leaders would need to adopt a flexible and strategic approach to navigate this changing landscape, taking advantage of alternative global partnerships to compensate for the lack of U.S. support.
Zimbabwe is already aligning itself with the broader African goal of self-reliance, represented by initiatives such as the AfCFTA. Trump’s return may only accelerate this momentum, pushing Zimbabwe and its African neighbours toward strengthening regional cooperation and self-sustained development. But the ultimate impact of Trump’s potential victory will depend on Zimbabwe’s ability to leverage its alliances effectively, implement sound economic reforms, and address governance issues that could otherwise deter foreign investment.
For Zimbabwe, a Trump win represents both a test and an opportunity—one that will require deft diplomacy, regional solidarity, and a commitment to sustainable development to navigate effectively in a world of shifting alliances and emerging challenges.