Opinion / Columnist
The ZANU-PF–Britain alliance is a self-serving bond that never served the people
17 hrs ago | Views
The political theatre designed to deceive Zimbabweans seems never-ending.
A few days ago, senior Zimbabwean officials and British nationals gathered in Harare to celebrate King Charles III's birthday, exchanging pleasantries, diplomatic smiles, and reaffirming so-called "inevitable and unbreakable ties" between the two nations.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The occasion was further marked by a visit from UK Minister for Africa, Lord Collins of Highbury, who paid a courtesy call on President Emmerson Mnangagwa at State House.
But as we marvel at the resurfacing of this once-frosty relationship, we must ask: when have these ties ever truly been for the benefit of ordinary Zimbabweans?
This carefully choreographed romance between Britain and Zimbabwe's ruling elite has always been less about mutual respect or justice, and more about securing British interests through local proxies - with ZANU-PF playing that role to perfection.
To understand today's seemingly warm relations between the UK and Zimbabwe's ruling party, we must revisit the origins of this entanglement.
At the height of Africa's liberation movements, Britain faced growing pressure to decolonize.
In 1960, UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan delivered his famous "Winds of Change" speech in Cape Town, signaling that independence for African colonies was no longer a matter of if, but when.
Yet Britain had a Cold War problem on its hands.
The Soviet Union had begun providing overt support to several liberation movements across Africa, including Zimbabwe's largest nationalist formation, ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo.
The Western world, locked in fierce ideological competition with the East, couldn't allow Moscow-backed parties to dominate post-colonial governments.
What Britain needed in Zimbabwe was a new breed of "liberators" who would gain control but protect Western economic and political interests.
ZANU, which had split from ZAPU and found support from China rather than the USSR, presented the perfect compromise.
The Chinese were then a marginal global power, not the hegemonic force they are today.
As a result, Britain and its Western allies were far more comfortable promoting a Beijing-backed ZANU than a Moscow-aligned ZAPU.
Though there is no conclusive evidence that Britain directly formed ZANU, it's clear the party benefited from favorable Western backing.
As documented in The Struggle for Zimbabwe, even the rent for ZANU's offices in Dar es Salaam was reportedly paid by the Israeli embassy - a Western ally.
Meanwhile, ZANU leadership, especially Robert Mugabe, became darlings of the British media.
The BBC, in particular, had unprecedented access to ZANU military camps, producing glowing documentaries that cast the party in heroic light while largely ignoring ZAPU.
This special relationship matured in 1980, when Zimbabwe finally attained independence after a brief return to British rule following Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965.
During the elections, British Governor Lord Soames was widely accused of ignoring systematic intimidation and violence by ZANLA combatants, many of whom had not reported to agreed-upon assembly points under the Lancaster House ceasefire.
These tactics were meant to sway rural voters toward ZANU.
Rumors swirled that ballot papers were flown to Britain and destroyed, further fueling speculation of electoral rigging.
Even Mugabe himself, speaking at the United Nations later that year, publicly thanked the British for helping ZANU ascend to power - a clear indicator of who his true backers were.
For ZANU, the mission was simple: safeguard British and Western interests in Zimbabwe.
Land reform, the most emotive issue from the liberation struggle, was quietly pushed to the back burner as Mugabe courted Western praise.
Nowhere was this alliance more sinister than during the Gukurahundi massacres of the 1980s.
While the Mugabe regime unleashed a campaign of terror against mostly Ndebele civilians - viewed as ZAPU supporters and therefore a lingering Soviet threat - Britain stood by in silence.
Over 20,000 people were murdered, and thousands more tortured or raped.
Yet in 1994, Mugabe was knighted by the Queen of England.
For Britain, the elimination of Soviet-aligned threats in Zimbabwe justified turning a blind eye to genocide.
The relationship only soured in the late 1990s when the British Labour government, under Tony Blair, terminated financial support for Zimbabwe's land reform program.
The reason was simple: widespread corruption and misuse of funds.
According to a 1997 letter from Britain's Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, Zimbabwe had failed to implement transparent and equitable land distribution.
Funds intended for land acquisition were diverted to benefit political elites, military generals, and senior party officials - not the landless poor.
That betrayal of principle was compounded by growing demands for accountability.
Meanwhile, ZANU-PF faced its first serious electoral threat since independence with the formation of the MDC at the turn of the millennium.
Desperate to retain power, the regime turned to populist and violent land seizures, ironically betraying the very interests it had long protected for Britain.
Farms were taken, often chaotically and bloodily, not to redress historical injustices but to manufacture grassroots legitimacy and regain political capital.
This was the breaking point for Britain.
Targeted sanctions followed, and relations deteriorated dramatically.
But behind the scenes, Western governments never completely severed ties.
According to WikiLeaks, US diplomats had already begun holding secret meetings with high-ranking ZANU-PF officials - laying the groundwork for a post-Mugabe transition.
So, when Mugabe was finally deposed in a military coup in 2017, it wasn't surprising that Britain was one of the first countries to embrace his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Ambassador Catriona Laing quickly met the new leader.
Mnangagwa, in a swift nod to Western interests, pledged to compensate white farmers for land seized under Mugabe.
This culminated in the 2020 Global Compensation Deed, a $3.5 billion commitment to dispossessed white farmers.
Predictably, Britain responded by lifting targeted sanctions, even as Mnangagwa's regime ramped up human rights abuses and closed democratic space.
This revealed the uncomfortable truth: sanctions had little to do with democracy or human rights and everything to do with punishing ZANU-PF for touching British interests.
Today, with UK ministers once again visiting Harare, smiling beside Mnangagwa and exchanging symbolic gifts, we are witnessing the reinstallation of Zimbabwe's ruling elite as custodians of British influence.
Mnangagwa is simply continuing the original mission entrusted to ZANU in the 1970s: protect British interests while maintaining a façade of African liberation.
And once again, ordinary Zimbabweans are left on the sidelines - voiceless, disenfranchised, and brutalized by a regime empowered by external powers.
Just as they did during Gukurahundi, just as they did during the 1980 election violence, and just as they did when ballot papers were quietly flown out of the country, the British have chosen to look away.
Their support for Zimbabwe's ruling elite has never been about justice, democracy, or the welfare of black Zimbabweans.
It has always been about strategic self-interest.
No amount of diplomatic banquets or hashtags will erase that history.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +23715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
A few days ago, senior Zimbabwean officials and British nationals gathered in Harare to celebrate King Charles III's birthday, exchanging pleasantries, diplomatic smiles, and reaffirming so-called "inevitable and unbreakable ties" between the two nations.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The occasion was further marked by a visit from UK Minister for Africa, Lord Collins of Highbury, who paid a courtesy call on President Emmerson Mnangagwa at State House.
But as we marvel at the resurfacing of this once-frosty relationship, we must ask: when have these ties ever truly been for the benefit of ordinary Zimbabweans?
This carefully choreographed romance between Britain and Zimbabwe's ruling elite has always been less about mutual respect or justice, and more about securing British interests through local proxies - with ZANU-PF playing that role to perfection.
To understand today's seemingly warm relations between the UK and Zimbabwe's ruling party, we must revisit the origins of this entanglement.
At the height of Africa's liberation movements, Britain faced growing pressure to decolonize.
In 1960, UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan delivered his famous "Winds of Change" speech in Cape Town, signaling that independence for African colonies was no longer a matter of if, but when.
Yet Britain had a Cold War problem on its hands.
The Soviet Union had begun providing overt support to several liberation movements across Africa, including Zimbabwe's largest nationalist formation, ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo.
The Western world, locked in fierce ideological competition with the East, couldn't allow Moscow-backed parties to dominate post-colonial governments.
What Britain needed in Zimbabwe was a new breed of "liberators" who would gain control but protect Western economic and political interests.
ZANU, which had split from ZAPU and found support from China rather than the USSR, presented the perfect compromise.
The Chinese were then a marginal global power, not the hegemonic force they are today.
As a result, Britain and its Western allies were far more comfortable promoting a Beijing-backed ZANU than a Moscow-aligned ZAPU.
Though there is no conclusive evidence that Britain directly formed ZANU, it's clear the party benefited from favorable Western backing.
As documented in The Struggle for Zimbabwe, even the rent for ZANU's offices in Dar es Salaam was reportedly paid by the Israeli embassy - a Western ally.
Meanwhile, ZANU leadership, especially Robert Mugabe, became darlings of the British media.
The BBC, in particular, had unprecedented access to ZANU military camps, producing glowing documentaries that cast the party in heroic light while largely ignoring ZAPU.
This special relationship matured in 1980, when Zimbabwe finally attained independence after a brief return to British rule following Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965.
During the elections, British Governor Lord Soames was widely accused of ignoring systematic intimidation and violence by ZANLA combatants, many of whom had not reported to agreed-upon assembly points under the Lancaster House ceasefire.
These tactics were meant to sway rural voters toward ZANU.
Rumors swirled that ballot papers were flown to Britain and destroyed, further fueling speculation of electoral rigging.
Even Mugabe himself, speaking at the United Nations later that year, publicly thanked the British for helping ZANU ascend to power - a clear indicator of who his true backers were.
For ZANU, the mission was simple: safeguard British and Western interests in Zimbabwe.
Land reform, the most emotive issue from the liberation struggle, was quietly pushed to the back burner as Mugabe courted Western praise.
Nowhere was this alliance more sinister than during the Gukurahundi massacres of the 1980s.
While the Mugabe regime unleashed a campaign of terror against mostly Ndebele civilians - viewed as ZAPU supporters and therefore a lingering Soviet threat - Britain stood by in silence.
Yet in 1994, Mugabe was knighted by the Queen of England.
For Britain, the elimination of Soviet-aligned threats in Zimbabwe justified turning a blind eye to genocide.
The relationship only soured in the late 1990s when the British Labour government, under Tony Blair, terminated financial support for Zimbabwe's land reform program.
The reason was simple: widespread corruption and misuse of funds.
According to a 1997 letter from Britain's Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, Zimbabwe had failed to implement transparent and equitable land distribution.
Funds intended for land acquisition were diverted to benefit political elites, military generals, and senior party officials - not the landless poor.
That betrayal of principle was compounded by growing demands for accountability.
Meanwhile, ZANU-PF faced its first serious electoral threat since independence with the formation of the MDC at the turn of the millennium.
Desperate to retain power, the regime turned to populist and violent land seizures, ironically betraying the very interests it had long protected for Britain.
Farms were taken, often chaotically and bloodily, not to redress historical injustices but to manufacture grassroots legitimacy and regain political capital.
This was the breaking point for Britain.
Targeted sanctions followed, and relations deteriorated dramatically.
But behind the scenes, Western governments never completely severed ties.
According to WikiLeaks, US diplomats had already begun holding secret meetings with high-ranking ZANU-PF officials - laying the groundwork for a post-Mugabe transition.
So, when Mugabe was finally deposed in a military coup in 2017, it wasn't surprising that Britain was one of the first countries to embrace his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Ambassador Catriona Laing quickly met the new leader.
Mnangagwa, in a swift nod to Western interests, pledged to compensate white farmers for land seized under Mugabe.
This culminated in the 2020 Global Compensation Deed, a $3.5 billion commitment to dispossessed white farmers.
Predictably, Britain responded by lifting targeted sanctions, even as Mnangagwa's regime ramped up human rights abuses and closed democratic space.
This revealed the uncomfortable truth: sanctions had little to do with democracy or human rights and everything to do with punishing ZANU-PF for touching British interests.
Today, with UK ministers once again visiting Harare, smiling beside Mnangagwa and exchanging symbolic gifts, we are witnessing the reinstallation of Zimbabwe's ruling elite as custodians of British influence.
Mnangagwa is simply continuing the original mission entrusted to ZANU in the 1970s: protect British interests while maintaining a façade of African liberation.
And once again, ordinary Zimbabweans are left on the sidelines - voiceless, disenfranchised, and brutalized by a regime empowered by external powers.
Just as they did during Gukurahundi, just as they did during the 1980 election violence, and just as they did when ballot papers were quietly flown out of the country, the British have chosen to look away.
Their support for Zimbabwe's ruling elite has never been about justice, democracy, or the welfare of black Zimbabweans.
It has always been about strategic self-interest.
No amount of diplomatic banquets or hashtags will erase that history.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +23715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
