Is Mnangagwa's tariff capitulation a dangerous gamble to appease Trump at Zimbabwe's economic expense?

Zawya

07-04-2025

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's latest decision to suspend all tariffs on United States goods, announced in response to new U.S. tariffs on Zimbabwean exports, is both baffling and dangerous.
While President Donald Trump has declared a global tariff war under the guise of 'reciprocity,' Zimbabwe's reaction defies not only economic logic but also political common sense.
It exposes, with striking clarity, a leadership more interested in appeasing foreign powers—particularly one led by a controversial and isolationist figure like Trump—than defending the interests of its own citizens.
The global community has not taken Trump's protectionist measures lying down.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Powerful economies such as China, Canada, and the European Union have responded with retaliatory tariffs, meant to safeguard their economies and send a clear diplomatic message.
China, for instance, swiftly hiked its tariffs on U.S. imports to 34%, while Canada's Prime Minister announced protective countermeasures that would shield Canadian industries and workers.
These countries understand that international trade is a game of leverage.
When one party weaponizes trade to the detriment of another, the only rational response is to push back—not surrender.
Zimbabwe, on the other hand, has opted to do the complete opposite.
Mnangagwa has not only refrained from reciprocating with similar trade restrictions but has thrown open the floodgates by scrapping all tariffs on U.S. imports entirely.
This decision has been dressed in diplomatic language about 'fostering mutual cooperation' and 'constructive engagement,' yet its implications are economically catastrophic and politically submissive.
Let's start with the economics.
Tariffs, while sometimes abused, are a fundamental tool used by developing countries to protect their nascent industries from being overrun by dominant foreign producers.
Zimbabwe's economy, fragile and underdeveloped as it is, relies heavily on these duties to sustain local industry, generate government revenue, and maintain some form of trade balance.
Eliminating tariffs on U.S. goods will render local manufacturers even more vulnerable than they already are.
They are expected to compete, without any protection, against highly mechanized and subsidized U.S. producers whose scale of operation allows them to flood markets with cheap goods.
This is not competition—it is annihilation.
Zimbabwe's already weakened industrial sector, operating in an environment riddled with power outages, limited access to finance, and poor infrastructure, will be unable to withstand the influx of cheaper U.S. alternatives.
The consequences will be swift and severe: further factory closures, job losses, increased unemployment, and the complete erosion of domestic productive capacity.
If anything, this move accelerates Zimbabwe's de-industrialization.
Even from a purely fiscal standpoint, Mnangagwa's decision is senseless.
Customs duties constitute a significant portion of Zimbabwe's revenue collection, especially given the state's failure to account for revenue from its numerous taxes on citizens, which is lost due to leakages, corruption, and mismanagement.
By waiving tariffs on U.S. goods, the government is willfully forfeiting desperately needed income.
This at a time when hospitals lack basic medicines, teachers and nurses are poorly paid, and the country struggles to fund service delivery.
It is not only economically unsound—it is fiscally irresponsible.
But there's a darker side to this decision, one that exposes the true motivations behind this unprecedented generosity toward Washington.
It is no secret that relations between Zimbabwe and the United States have been frosty for decades, particularly since the early 2000s when Washington imposed targeted sanctions on Zimbabwean elites.
In 2024, President Mnangagwa, his wife Auxillia, and their close associates were sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act for alleged human rights abuses and grand corruption.
As a result, the U.S. froze their U.S.-based financial assets, imposed travel bans, and prohibited U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with them.
In this context, Mnangagwa's unprovoked overture begins to make more sense—not as a national strategy, but as a personal plea for clemency.
By offering Trump a tariff-free highway into Zimbabwean markets, the Zimbabwean president appears to be attempting a transactional deal: economic surrender in exchange for political rehabilitation.
He is hoping, it seems, that the U.S. will view his 'good faith' gesture as reason enough to review or ease the sanctions regime.
This is not diplomacy—it is grovelling.
Worse still, it is grovelling at the expense of the Zimbabwean people.
This is not the first time Zimbabwe's leadership has sacrificed the public interest to placate foreign powers for personal benefit.
During the late Mugabe era, similar concessions were made—whether in the form of unsustainable deals with the Chinese or desperate appeals to Western governments for reengagement, while ordinary citizens bore the brunt of economic mismanagement.
Mnangagwa's move mirrors that same pattern of elite self-preservation disguised as 'engagement.'
And yet, there is no indication that this act of appeasement will yield any tangible results.
Donald Trump's tariff strategy is not about engagement or reward.
It is rooted in a crude nationalist economic agenda, designed to boost American manufacturing, reduce trade deficits, and consolidate his political base.
Countries that have historically relied on American goodwill have found themselves punished, not rewarded.
Mnangagwa is banking on a delusion: that his submission will earn him favour.
In reality, it is more likely to be ignored—or worse, seen as weakness ripe for exploitation.
The real tragedy, however, is that Zimbabweans will suffer while their leaders gamble for personal redemption.
By removing all tariffs on U.S. goods, Mnangagwa has offered American companies unfettered access to Zimbabwe's market with no safeguards, no tax contributions, and no reciprocal trade benefits.
This is not a 'mutually beneficial' trade agreement.
It is economic colonialism under the guise of goodwill.
The United States stands to gain everything—expanded market share, new export routes, geopolitical leverage—while Zimbabwe gains nothing but debt, dependency, and deepened poverty.
One must ask: Where was the consultation with Parliament, with local industry, or with trade unions before such a drastic policy shift was announced?
Where is the economic impact assessment?
Where is the transparency?
The decision was made unilaterally and announced on social media, with little thought for the consequences.
This is not how trade policy should be conducted in a sovereign republic.
Mnangagwa's announcement marks a shameful moment in Zimbabwe's post-independence history—a moment when a leader chose appeasement over principle, submission over strategy, and personal interest over national survival.
It sends a chilling message to Zimbabweans and the world: that their government is willing to sacrifice economic sovereignty on the altar of political expediency.
In the end, the real losers in this political game are the people of Zimbabwe.
The workers whose jobs will be lost to foreign competition, the entrepreneurs whose businesses will collapse under the weight of cheap imports, and the ordinary citizens who will pay more as the country bleeds revenue and spirals deeper into economic despair.
Mnangagwa may believe he is playing chess on the world stage—but in truth, he has just handed over the board.
Syndigate.info).