Here Is Why Mnangagwa Rejected America’s US$367 Million Health Aid Offer

The statement below, which explains why Zimbabwe walked away from talks with the United States of America, was issued by Ndavaningi “Nick” Mangwana, Secretary for Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services:

Nick Mangwana, Secretary for Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services in the Republic of Zimbabwe

Recent extensive media reports have drawn attention to a leaked internal government communication between the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Secretary for Health and Child Care, and the Secretary for Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion.

This correspondence detailed His Excellency President Dr. E.D. Mnangagwa’s directive that negotiations on a proposed health funding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under the United States’ America First Global Health Strategy be immediately terminated.

The US Embassy in Zimbabwe subsequently issued a statement expressing their sentiment on the decision by the Government of Zimbabwe.

This piece is meant to make the Zimbabwean people where their government is coming from.

It will explain the nuances of the proposed MOU and the fact that their government is acting in their best interests

As the government responsible for the welfare of our citizens and the stewardship of our nation’s future, it is incumbent upon us to provide clarity on the rationale behind this decision—a decision that has been characterised in some quarters as controversial, but which we maintain was necessary, principled, and entirely consistent with our sovereign rights as an independent nation.

Let us state at the outset that Zimbabwe values its longstanding bilateral relationship with the United States.

We recognise the historical contributions of American health assistance, particularly through PEPFAR and other programmes, which have played a significant role in our national health response over the years. However, a partnership, by its very definition, must be built on a foundation of mutual respect, transparency, and reciprocal benefit.

It was the President’s considered assessment, following rigorous inter-ministerial review, that the draft MoU presented for consideration did not meet these fundamental criteria.

The Principle of Equitable Partnership

The proposed agreement offered substantial health funding—reported to be in the region of US$328 million—in exchange for comprehensive access to Zimbabwe’s sensitive health data, including pathogen samples and epidemiological information from our citizens. While the offer of assistance was acknowledged, the structure of the agreement raised profound concerns regarding sovereignty and fairness.

At its core, the arrangement was asymmetrical.

Zimbabwe was being asked to share its biological resources and data over an extended period, with no corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations—such as vaccines, diagnostics, or treatments—that might result from that shared data. In essence, our nation would provide the raw materials for scientific discovery without any assurance that the end products would be accessible to our people should a future health crisis emerge.

The United States, meanwhile, was not offering reciprocal sharing of its own epidemiological data with our health authorities.

This is not a matter of rejecting partnership, but of insisting that partnership be genuine. It is our duty to protect the long-term health security of Zimbabweans, not merely to accept short-term assistance that could compromise our ability to benefit from future scientific breakthroughs.

Upholding Multilateral Commitments

Furthermore, Zimbabwe is a firm believer in multilateralism, particularly in matters of global health security.

The United States’ concurrent withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its pursuit of bilateral health agreements with individual nations represents a departure from the multilateral frameworks that have been carefully constructed to ensure equitable pandemic preparedness and response.

At recent WHO negotiations, Zimbabwe had the honour of speaking on behalf of 50 African member states in insisting that pathogen data with pandemic potential be shared exclusively through the WHO’s multilateral system—specifically the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) framework.

This system is designed to ensure that when a country contributes its data, the benefits—including vaccines and treatments—are shared equitably, not commercialised exclusively by those with the resources to develop them.

To accept a bilateral arrangement that bypasses this multilateral mechanism would undermine the very solidarity that African nations have been advocating for on the global stage.

Our decision, therefore, is consistent with our continental commitment to ensuring that Africa is not merely a source of biological material but an equal beneficiary of global health innovations.

A Matter of National Sovereignty

The leaked correspondence rightly highlighted that the President’s directive was grounded in a fundamental principle: no foreign assistance, regardless of its monetary value, should compromise the sovereignty and independence of Zimbabwe as a nation. Our constitutional mandate requires us to safeguard our citizens’ data, our biological resources, and our national decision-making autonomy.

Development aid should empower nations, not create dependencies or serve as a vehicle for strategic extraction. When financial assistance is contingent upon concessions that touch upon national security, data sovereignty, or access to strategic resources, it fundamentally alters the nature of the relationship from one of partnership to one of unequal exchange. This we cannot accept, and this we believe any self-respecting sovereign nation would also reject.

A Broader African Perspective

It is worth noting that Zimbabwe is not alone in its concerns.

Several other African nations have expressed reservations about these agreements, and in at least one instance, a country’s judiciary has intervened to halt implementation pending further scrutiny.

This growing continental reflection should not be misconstrued as anti-American sentiment. On the contrary, it is a sign of Africa’s maturation as a geopolitical actor, one that seeks partnerships based on equality rather than patronage.

We welcome continued dialogue with our American counterparts on how future cooperation might be structured in a manner that respects the sovereignty and dignity of both nations. Indeed, we believe that a relationship built on mutual respect is ultimately more sustainable and beneficial for both parties than one founded on asymmetrical demands.

Conclusion

President Mnangagwa’s directive to terminate negotiations on this particular MoU was not taken lightly.

It followed a thorough inter-ministerial review and was guided by principle, not politics; by foresight, not frugality.

Zimbabwe stands ready to work with all nations—including the United States—in advancing global health security, but we will do so on terms that preserve our sovereignty, protect our citizens’ data, and ensure that any partnership is genuinely reciprocal.

True friendship between nations, like between persons, is not measured by what one can extract from the other, but by the mutual respect with which they treat one another.

It is in this spirit that we extend our hand to the United States, hopeful that future engagements will reflect the dignity and equality that both our nations deserve.

_Pindula_