Zimbabwe and the United States must step back from the brink and engage with the sobriety expected of administrations responsible for human lives. What began as a progressive agreement to safeguard the health of millions collapsed this week amid mistrust over data sharing.
The breakdown now threatens to trigger a far more serious crisis.
Both sides may have legitimate arguments. But rigidly clinging to positions that triggered the termination of such a critical deal suggests egos took centre stage over reason. This is particularly troubling for Zimbabwe, whose government has long struggled to adequately fund social services.
One only needs to examine the state of public infrastructure across the country to grasp the severe fiscal constraints confronting an expanding population.
The collapse of the US$367 million health funding agreement is not merely a diplomatic disagreement. It is a warning sign of a looming public health emergency whose consequences could prove dire unless authorities secure alternative funding or revive negotiations.
At the heart of the dispute are Harare’s objections to conditions attached to the funding, especially demands to share sensitive health and biological data. Harare argues that such provisions infringe on sovereignty and could expose strategic resources without guaranteed reciprocal benefits.
Keep Reading
- ‘Zec refuses to release voters roll’…Mangwana, Silaigwana evasive
- In Full: Nineteenth post-cabinet press briefing: July 05, 2022
- Health talk: Be wary of measles, its a deadly disease
- Harare man ordered to pay US$100K in adultery damages
These concerns are not trivial. In a world where data is increasingly viewed as a strategic asset, many developing nations fear being locked into unequal knowledge exchanges that advantage richer partners.
Yet sovereignty must be weighed against reality. Zimbabwe’s health system remains heavily donor dependent, chronically underfunded, and strained by staff shortages. Walking away from a lifeline worth over US$300 million risks catastrophic disruption to programmes targeting HIV, TB and malaria.
Harare should have remained at the negotiating table until a fair and balanced settlement was secured. Walking away is not a sign of strength.
In this context, it signals vulnerability.
Public health is not an arena for brinkmanship.
Civil society groups have warned that treatment disruptions could fuel drug resistance and reverse decades of progress. Such setbacks would not only cost lives but impose far greater long-term financial burdens on the state.
Is Washington justified in attaching conditions? From the donor’s perspective, accountability, transparency, and research collaboration are standard requirements. In an increasingly polarised global environment, funders want assurances that resources are used effectively and that shared data contributes to scientific advancement.
But the US must also acknowledge the power imbalance inherent in such negotiations. When assistance appears contingent on open-ended access to sensitive national data without guaranteed benefit sharing, the arrangement risks appearing extractive rather than co-operative. Programmes framed under “America First” priorities inevitably heighten fears that donor interests will dominate.
Common sense therefore demands compromise, not capitulation, from either side.
Zimbabwe should not abandon legitimate sovereignty concerns. But neither can it afford absolutism. A pragmatic path forward would involve renegotiating terms to include strict safeguards such as clearly defined limits on data use and joint ownership of research outcomes. Transparency with parliament and the public would further build confidence.
At the same time, Harare must confront a deeper structural weakness — excessive reliance on external funding. Meeting the African Union Abuja target of allocating 15% of the national budget to health “on paper” means little if most funds are absorbed by salaries while clinics lack medicines and equipment. Sustainable domestic financing mechanisms are essential to reduce vulnerability to donor withdrawal.
Washington, for its part, should reconsider whether disengagement serves either humanitarian or strategic interests. Suspending assistance risks punishing ordinary Zimbabweans for unresolved technical disagreements and undermines the moral credibility of foreign aid.
Negotiations can resume. Technical teams can refine contentious clauses.
We know that lives are not bargaining chips, and that epidemics do not respect sovereignty disputes. In public health, cooperation is not charity, but mutual self-interest.
Common sense must prevail.