
Is Zimbabwe wooing Donald Trump by paying white farmers and ending tariffs?
Long-frozen relations between the United States and Zimbabwe may be thawing after the Southern African nation slashed all taxes on US goods flowing into the country and announced it has begun to pay compensation to white farmers who lost land during controversial, sometimes violent land expropriation reforms that were instituted 25 years ago
The moves come amid a wave of sweeping tariffs imposed on countries around the world by US President Donald Trump, and as other countries scramble to renegotiate with Washington.
Alongside his stated aim of reducing trading deficits with the US's trading partners, Trump has repeatedly claimed that white farmers in Southern Africa are discriminated against. Both he and his adviser, South African-born Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, have criticised the treatment of white minorities in South Africa, alleging that they face discrimination. Zimbabwe and South Africa have white minority populations who are mainly descendants of British settlers.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe has been in the throes of economic collapse for more than two decades. Over that time, hyperinflation has weakened the economy, killed jobs, and seen the introduction of several legal tenders, from the US dollar to the new gold-backed ZiG.
Advertisement
So, might Zimbabwe be trying to please the US and woo President Trump in the hope of economic gains? And could that work? Here's what we know:
Why has Zimbabwe cancelled tariffs on US imports?
President Trump's April 2 Liberation Day tariff announcements saw dozens of countries hit with varying surcharges on goods imported to the US, including Zimbabwe, which was hit with an 18 percent levy on all products it exports there.
Tariffs levied on African nations by President Trump vary. Neighbouring Lesotho has been hit with the highest tax of any African nation at 50 percent, and is currently seeking to renegotiate with the White House.
Zimbabwe mostly exports steel components, tobacco and sugar to the US while the US exports machinery, pharmaceuticals and agricultural produce to the Zimbabwean market.
Trade between the two countries is limited, reaching a total of about $111.6m in 2024. US exports to Zimbabwe amounted to $43.8m, while imports from Zimbabwe were $67.8m. The trade deficit in favour of Zimbabwe was, therefore, just over $24m, according to US government data.
Countries around the world have been scrambling to negotiate a reduction in tariffs with Washington. On April 9, the White House placed a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tax hikes to allow time for country representatives to strike deals and because most countries had not retaliated, Trump said. The only exception is China, which has opted to go head-to-head by reciprocating and increasing taxes on US imports into the country to 125 percent and will not benefit from the pause.
Advertisement
Zimbabwe has taken an entirely different approach. In a post on X on April 5, Zimbabwe's President Emmerson Mnangagwa announced that all taxes on US imports would be scrapped in order to build a 'positive relationship' with Washington.
The move is 'intended to facilitate the expansion of American imports within the Zimbabwean market, while simultaneously promoting the growth of Zimbabwean exports destined for the United States', the Zimbabwean president said.
Zimbabwe is the first country to suspend tariffs on US goods in response to Trump's tariffs announcement. Until now, most goods entering the country have been subject to a 15 percent levy.
Will cancelling tariffs on US goods be good for Zimbabwe?
It's unlikely, experts say. South Africa-based economist Eddie Mahembe from business consultancy Underhill Corporate Solutions, said Zimbabwe cannot afford not to tax US imports and the move could worsen the country's already frail economy.
'It'll mean that US goods will flood Zimbabwe, and then it will kill the economy more,' Mahembe told Al Jazeera. Local competitors, already affected by hyperinflation and cheap goods coming in from China, are likely to suffer more, he added. Zimbabwe could see less production, more unemployment and even lower revenues from levies, he said.
'What they did was not necessary, at all,' Mahemmbe added, referring to the Zimbabwean government.
Experts also say the move could cause tension with Zimbabwe's biggest trading partners – South Africa, China and the United Arab Emirates, who might question why they should still pay tariffs on their goods entering Zimbabwe, when the US does not have to. 'This move could sour Zimbabwe's relationships with partners,' policy analysts Craig Moffat and EM Hoza wrote in an opinion piece for the South African newspaper, The Mail and Guardian.
'These countries might demand similar tariff exemptions or seek to renegotiate trade terms … Zimbabwe's actions could be perceived as undermining the principles of fair, non-discriminatory trade.'
Why is Zimbabwe making payments to white farmers now?
On April 10, Zimbabwean Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube told reporters the government had approved a disbursement of $3.1m in compensation to be shared by white farmers displaced from nearly 400 farms seized by the government in 2000 after then-President Robert Mugabe signed a controversial land expropriation programme. This is the first in a series of planned compensation payments.
The Zimbabwean government did not explicitly state that the recent payments were prompted by President Trump's tariffs announcement and negotiations.
Mugabe's land programme was supposed to redistribute land to disadvantaged Black Zimbabweans with the aim of boosting equity and agricultural development. Land was seized from some 4,000 white farmers, sometimes forcefully and violently between 2000 and 2001, and at least seven farmers were killed.
Advertisement
Until that point, minority white people, who made up about 4 percent of the population, owned more than half the land in Zimbabwe, while locals were crowded into 'native reserves'.
However, the policy failed to achieve its aim and contributed to the weakening of the Zimbabwean economy. Rather than resettle peasants, the political elite including Mugabe's family, acquired large swaths of land for rent. Farming output dropped significantly, causing food supply chains to dry up. Zimbabwe was also sanctioned by several Western countries, including the US, for the move.
In 2020, after two decades of crippling sanctions, the government agreed to pay white farmers $3.5bn for infrastructure such as wells, irrigation equipment and buildings on seized land. Only 1 percent was to be paid in cash, with the balance to be settled with treasury bonds. According to Finance Minister Ncube, the government has now issued treasury bonds for the first batch of farmers.
The payments have caused controversy in the country, with some Black Zimbabweans questioning why public money is being used to compensate the farmers, rather than being paid directly by those who benefitted from the policy.
What is the current political situation in Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwean politics are currently dominated by a power struggle within the ruling ZANU-PF party.
Advertisement
Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who came to power in 2017 on promises of democratic and economic reforms, is facing pressure to step down from within his party after his current, second term. ZANU-PF has dominated government since the country's independence in 1980.
A succession battle has erupted ahead of the general elections scheduled for 2028. Factions have emerged: one supporting a prolonged, unconstitutional third term for Mnangagwa, 82, so that he can continue with his reforms, and another supporting the ascendancy of Constantino Chiwenga, his 68-year-old vice president.
Experts say the government hopes its recent decision to cancel tariffs on US goods may lead to a lifting of sanctions by countries like the US and other potential international lenders. That could provide some respite for Zimbabwe after years of economic decline.
However, economist Mahembe said the tariff move was more likely to ingratiate a small, political elite with the US and other markets, to enable those few to benefit from lucrative mineral sales.
In March 2024, First Lady Auxillia Mnangagwa, alongside her husband and several other government officials, was sanctioned by the United States for alleged involvement in illicit diamond and gold networks.
Earlier, in 2023, an Al Jazeera investigation revealed that Zimbabwean officials were using smuggling gangs to sell the country's gold to soften the impact of sanctions.
'It's not just about the country, it's also really more about them,' Mahembe said, referring to the country's political elite.
Advertisement
Will Zimbabwe's moves appease Trump?
It's unclear if President Mnangagwa can achieve his stated goal of building a better, 'positive' relationship with Washington.
Regarding compensating white farmers, it is unclear whether the recent move to make the first compensation payments is designed to please Trump.
Furthermore, some problems concerning the payments have emerged. A group of affected farmers accused the government on Wednesday of over-stating the amounts being paid and said the amount being paid now is too low.
In a statement, Deon Theron, acting chairman of the Compensation Steering Committee set up to represent farmers, also said officials in Harare had not properly consulted the majority of the farmers in the compensation process.
'In reality, only a small token payment has been made and thousands of farmers, the significant majority by number, remain uncompensated,' Theron said.
The $3.5bn agreed to was 'already a substantial discount on the actual value of the properties, and these payments have reached fewer than 10 percent of farmers,' he added.
© Copyright The Zimbabwean. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arabian Post
30 minutes ago
- Arabian Post
Trade Envoys from US and China to Convene in London Amid Renewed Optimism
Top trade officials from the United States and China are set to meet in London on Monday, 9 June, in a bid to ease escalating tensions over tariffs, technology transfers, and critical mineral exports. The announcement follows a 90-minute phone call between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, during which both leaders agreed to resume dialogue and expressed cautious optimism about resolving key disputes. Leading the US delegation will be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Chinese side has not officially confirmed its delegation, but past rounds have included Vice Premier He Lifeng, Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang, and Vice Finance Minister Liao Min. Li, who was appointed as China's International Trade Negotiator in April, has been instrumental in shaping Beijing's response to the ongoing trade conflict. The upcoming talks follow a temporary truce brokered in Geneva on 12 May, where both nations agreed to reduce retaliatory tariffs—previously as high as 145%—to more manageable levels. However, the ceasefire is set to expire on 12 August, adding urgency to the London negotiations. ADVERTISEMENT A central issue on the agenda is the flow of rare earth minerals, which are essential for advanced manufacturing and defence technologies. China's earlier suspension of some rare earth exports to the US had heightened concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities. During their phone call, President Trump stated that President Xi agreed to resume these exports, a move that could alleviate pressure on US manufacturers. However, Beijing has yet to publicly confirm this commitment. The trade dispute has had significant economic repercussions. American businesses have faced increased costs due to tariffs, and a pending lawsuit challenges the legality of these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The outcome of both the negotiations and the legal case could significantly influence future US trade policy and economic relations with China. President Trump has expressed optimism about the upcoming talks, stating, 'The meeting should go very well.' However, the complexity of the issues at hand suggests that reaching a comprehensive agreement may require sustained effort and compromise from both sides.


Al Etihad
an hour ago
- Al Etihad
China allows limited exports of rare earths as shortages continue
7 June 2025 09:39 BEIJING (THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE)China's Ministry of Commerce has started issuing more export licenses for shipments of rare earth magnets in recent days, but the pace remains factories in the automotive sector and other industries in Europe and the United States, and a few in Japan, are running low on the makes 90% of the world's supply of these magnets, which are essential for cars, drones, factory robots, missiles and many other a 90-minute call Thursday with Chinese PresidentXi Jinping, US President Donald Trump wrote on social media that the two men had discussed rare earths. Trump mentioned that rare earths were a complex subject, but did not indicate whether anything had been decided about China's strict export licensing requirement, which Beijing imposed April wrote on social media Friday that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US trade representative Jamieson Greer would hold further economic talks Monday in London with top Chinese Trump was asked later on Air Force One whether Xi had agreed to allow rare earth minerals and magnets to flow to the US, Trump replied, 'Yes, he did,' but did not statement Thursday about the call did not mention rare earths, however. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, declined to answer a question about the minerals Friday at the ministry's daily briefing, saying that it was a matter for other Chinese Ministry of Commerce said Thursday before the two leaders spoke only that it would issue export licenses according to its new rules, introduced two months US and European chambers of commerce in China each said Friday that somewhat more export licenses had been issued in recent days. But both groups emphasised that more were needed, as the Ministry of Commerce faces a huge backlog of detailed applications for licenses. Rare earth metals, a group of 17 elements found near the bottom of the periodic table, have a wide range of industrial applications. China produces practically the entire world's supply of seven of the least common rare earths, including three that are crucial in making powerful, heat-resistant magnets.


Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.