ZIMBABWE recently did something rare. It turned down health funding from the United States.
As a Zimbabwean activist, I felt proud when my government refused a package worth US$367 million after Washington demanded access to critical minerals and sensitive health data.
I felt proud as an African and a fight inequality activist when I learnt about a bold decision made by Harare that cited conditions set in the deal as the reason for its refusal.
The pan-Africanist in me is always delighted by anything that puts the interests of the mother continent and people first.
But here is what attracted my interest: Donald Trump’s controversial health packages come on the back of the dismantling of USAid, US government withdrawal from the World Health Organisation and the championing of “America First” transactional policies which aim to ensure the US does not give charity without having something in return.
Africa is rich in natural resources.
Yet for centuries the resources have been extracted by foreign companies that pay little tax and leave nothing behind.
For centuries, western nations have exploited them by extracting the raw materials without paying fair taxes, often facilitated by corruption.
- Open letter to President Mnangagwa
- Feature: ‘It’s worse right now than under Mugabe’: Sikhala pays the price of opposition in solitary cell
- Masvingo turns down fire tender deal
- Human-wildlife conflict drive African wild dogs to extinction
Keep Reading
This is not accidental.
It is part of a global system that has long favoured multinational companies and wealthy nations over African economies.
Aid and loans are frequently tied to conditions that open the door for corporations to extract Africa’s minerals and natural resources while the benefits to local communities remain very limited.
I commend the Zimbabwean government for refusing to be swayed by the headline figures and instead examine the fine print.
What Zimbabwe found exploitative and extractive was the clauses hidden in the health package.
The question now is why did the other 16 African countries that signed similar agreements accept them?
Did they negotiate better terms or were they faced with the same conditions?
What Washington is proposing follows a familiar pattern of neocolonialism: offering assistance with one hand while seeking control of resources with the other.
If these deals exchange public resources for short-term funding, they risk deepening the same extractive pattern Africa has faced for decades.
Africa holds roughly 30% of the world’s mineral reserves which are valued in the tens of trillions of dollars.
Yet the continent loses between US$50 billion and US$90 billion each year through corruption, tax dodging and unfair trade practices.
The continent ranks as one of the most unequal in the world, with profound impact on healthcare access and quality.
Countries with International Monetary Fund loans continue to cut or cap vital investments in health, education and social protection.
And inadequate public funding pushes the poor to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket and this excludes the vast majority forcing them into a poverty cycle.
African countries must, therefore, not continue to lose their precious minerals and natural resources in exchange for aid or through unfair trade and exploitative tax regimes.
The continent must use its resources to uplift people’s lives by investing in public goods and services.
With resources like these, the question is not whether Africa needs more aid, but whether it needs fair trade rules and progressive tax systems that allow the continent to benefit from its own wealth.
Only six African countries consistently meet the Abuja Declaration target of allocating 15% of national budgets to health.
At the same time, many governments spend more servicing debts than funding healthcare, education and social protection combined.
Scrapping illegitimate debt and letting communities decide through free, prior and informed consent on how to use their natural resources will help to generate revenue that must be invested in public services and goods including healthcare.
African countries must challenge and do away with rigged trade economic systems and deals written by the elite for the 1% to realise more from precious minerals and natural resources through progressive taxation and fair trade.
Harare deserves credit for showing that African governments can refuse deals that do not serve national interests.
It is not too late for the other African countries to cancel similar colonial and exploitative agreements.
The continent’s natural resources, agriculture and tourism have the potential to generate the revenue needed to fund healthcare, education and social protection for its people.
We need economic systems that work for the vast majority of the African population, not just a small group of elites, billionaires and multinational corporations.
African leaders should look carefully at the conditions attached to health packages and refuse deals that undermine the continent’s long-term interests.
- Nqobizitha Mlambo is the National Coordinator for the Fight Inequality Alliance Zimbabwe and a just economies activist Coordinated by Lovemore Kadenge, an independent consultant, managing consultant of Zawale Consultants (Private) Limited, past president of the Zimbabwe Economic Society and past president of the Chartered Governance & Accountancy Institute in Zimbabwe. He can be contacted on [email protected] or +263 772 382 852.
