Is China's growing Zimbabwe alliance key to its bigger plans for southern Africa?
Advertisement
The US$3.6 billion plan to build Palm River Energy Metallurgical Industrial Park in the province of Matabeleland South is being led by one Chinese firm – Xinganglian (Shanxi) Holding Group, which aims to exploit abundant reserves of coal, iron ore, and chrome and position Zimbabwe as a major steel producer.
The project will cover 5,163 hectares (12,758 acres) within a special economic zone incorporating mining, power generation, coke production and steel manufacturing. It is expected to be built in five phases over 12 years.
Zimbabwe has become a key resource destination for China as companies continue to seal deals to establish mineral processing operations, including steel plants, at a time when such industries face decline in other countries, such as neighbouring
South Africa
The scope of the investments suggested that China had chosen Zimbabwe as its inaugural steel and chrome industrialisation zone in Africa, according to Lauren Johnston, a China-Africa specialist and associate professor at the University of Sydney's China Studies Centre.
Advertisement
'This makes sense. Zimbabwe has a rich human capital and natural resource endowment,' Johnston said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
28 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Chinese researchers lodge concerns over US debt as Beijing limits exposure
Calls for China to gradually reduce its exposure to US dollar assets are growing louder as Washington's national debt continues to set records, reigniting persistent worries over the long-term sustainability of an investment formerly considered rock solid. 'Although US Treasuries have not yet reached the default threshold, their expansion is unsustainable,' researchers from the Bank of China wrote in the latest issue of China Money, a publication supervised by the People's Bank of China, the country's central bank. With this concern in mind, China has been trimming its US Treasury holdings for three consecutive months, while keeping them roughly unchanged at the US$756 billion level in June, according to data released on Friday by the US Treasury Department. This remains the lowest level since March 2009. The researchers noted that US economic growth would be unlikely to offset rising debt from persistent budget and trade imbalances, warning that US President Donald Trump's efforts to narrow the trade deficit could curb global demand for the US dollar and undermine the currency's international role. This, they said, would put the country in a 'tug-of-war', oscillating between its economic and monetary priorities. 'Uncertainty over tariff, tax and fiscal reforms, coupled with a potential US dollar credibility crisis and speculation over the Mar-a-Lago Accord , could heighten volatility in the US Treasury market,' they said. '[We need to] gradually adjust US Treasury holdings and appropriately increase reserves of gold, key resources and strategic materials.'
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong suspends bottled water deal with mainland firm, files police report
Hong Kong authorities have suspended a newly granted drinking water supply contract with a mainland Chinese company and reported the matter to police. Advertisement The Government Logistics Department said on Saturday that it doubted Xin Ding Xin Trade Company could fulfil its obligations under the 36-month contract, which was granted to it just two months ago. The agreement stipulates the supply of bottled drinking water to government offices on Hong Kong Island and some outlying islands, starting from the end of June. It was one of the first contracts of its kind granted to a mainland firm, beating long-time supplier, AS Watsons Group, a subsidiary of Li Ka-shing's CK Hutchison Holdings. 'Due to operating information recently obtained about Xin Ding Xin Trade Company, the Government Logistics Department does not believe that the company will be able to continue performing the contract and has decided to suspend it according to the terms of the contract,' it said. 'The department will continue to follow up on the case seriously, so it could take further action, including whether to terminate the related contract. The Government Logistics Department has already referred the matter to the police for investigation.' Advertisement The department noted that AS Watson would temporarily take over and supply water to the affected government offices from next week.
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
China dependence poses existential risk to US universities
In July 2025, the Trump administration paused export controls on advanced AI chips to China in an effort to restart trade talks. The decision drew criticism from national security circles concerned about China's expanding tech dominance. Yet a quieter and more enduring pipeline of technological transfer remains largely overlooked: America's elite universities. Institutions such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Columbia are global beacons of research and innovation. Their mission statements reflect an ethos of internationalism and academic freedom. Harvard seeks to 'inspire every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world,' for example, and Columbia commits to 'advancing knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.' These ideals sound noble, and they often are, but they also create blind spots in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. Some of the most influential voices in academia have grown increasingly critical of America's global role. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that the US suffers from 'imperial overreach' and argues for a multipolar world where China plays a leading role. American University political scientist Amitav Acharya has, similarly, advocated a 'multiplex world order' that seeks to challenge America's global dominance. Even Princeton's John Ikenberry, often seen as a defender of liberal internationalism, has expressed concern that US unilateralism could unravel the very international order that America has helped build. These aren't abstract academic theories. They shape how universities approach international research and collaboration. In many elite institutions, the pursuit of knowledge is considered to be inherently global; an endeavor that should remain open, inclusive and free of political constraint. But as the boundary between civilian and military technologies grows fuzzier, particularly in fields like AI and quantum computing, academic openness can come at a cost. Such national security concerns are sometimes brushed aside by academia and are viewed as illegitimate, or even as reactionary or xenophobic. At the heart of this matter is money. Students from China and India compose more than half of the 1.1 million foreign students studying in the US. During the 2023–24 academic year, international students contributed more than $40 billion to the US economy. With annual tuition at elite schools often exceeding $60,000, these students fund research centers, laboratories, and faculty salaries. This revenue stream gives universities every reason to remain globally open, even if doing so occasionally creates tension between their priorities and national security. More significantly, many of these institutions maintain formal research partnerships with Chinese universities tied to state and military entities. Harvard, for instance, has collaborated with Tsinghua University, often referred to as China's MIT, on joint research on artificial intelligence, quantum physics, and biomedicine. While billed as academic exchanges, many projects in these fields relate directly to China's civil-military fusion strategy, whereby breakthroughs in science serve Chinese economic development as well as military modernization. These are not theoretical risks. They are playing out in real time. According to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, about one-third of Chinese nationals who earn PhDs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the US return home within five years. Many go on to work in high-priority sectors supporting China's strategic goals. Kai-Fu Lee, a Carnegie Mellon Ph.D., led Google China before founding Sinovation Ventures, an AI-focused firm closely aligned with Beijing's national objectives. Jie Tang, a Cornell PhD, now leads major AI research initiatives at Tsinghua. During my own fieldwork in China's aviation sector, I mentored two promising students, Kankan Xie and Jikuo Lu, through elite US graduate programs. One is now a professor at Peking University; the other works on AI at Meta but plans to return to China. Both were grateful for the opportunities they found in the United States but made clear that their long-term goals were to support China's national development. Faculty are not blind to this. Martin Widzer, who teaches at the University of Colorado Denver and at the International College Beijing, told me that many of his Chinese students were candid in their nationalist convictions. Several now attend elite US institutions, and many plan to return home, equipped with a world-class education and a strong sense of purpose. Even more concerning is the growing trend of academic self-censorship. Scholars who rely on access to China or funding from Chinese sources often steer clear of politically sensitive topics such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, cyber espionage and technology theft. A prominent China scholar declined to let me publish his comments, fearing that it could jeopardize his visa and access to archives. The pressure is real, and it is only growing. As China scholar Ming Xia has noted, this kind of self-censorship undermines academic independence. When faculty or institutions depend on partnerships with authoritarian states, they risk shaping their research agendas to align more closely with the priorities of their funders, conducting experiments based on what is deemed acceptable rather than on the pursuit of truth. This is not a call to end international cooperation. US science has thrived on open exchange. But universities must balance openness with strategic awareness and recognize how generosity can aid strategic rivals. Policymakers must adopt a tougher stance. Research that involves dual-use technologies alongside institutions in authoritarian states known for serious human rights abuses should be banned outright. Partnerships linked to foreign military or intelligence agencies must be suspended or ended immediately. The US should expand green-card access to foreign STEM graduates who have earned their degrees in the United States, to retain talent for American innovation and security. Moreover, increased federal and state funding for public higher education is essential to reduce universities' reliance on foreign tuition, which currently threatens national security and America's technological edge. Protecting our strategic interests allows no compromise. If the US is serious about maintaining technological leadership in the 21st century, we must recognize that the same institutions that are producing Nobel laureates and Pulitzer winners might also be accelerating China's military and technological rise. Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe University. He is the author of 'The Dragon Takes Flight: China's Aviation Policy, Achievements, and International Implications' and 'China's Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the United States.' This article first appeared on The National Review and is republished with the author's kind permission.
