In early June, Britain’s Africa minister, Lord Collins, landed in Harare for high-level talks with Zimbabwe’s president, Emmerson Mnangagwa. The two men exchanged warm handshakes and discussed trade opportunities between the two countries, but beneath the surface, the visit exposed the uncomfortable realities of Britain’s re-engagement with a regime long accused of repression and authoritarianism.
The meeting, centred on boosting investment and cooperation, came just as global human rights groups were raising alarms about Zimbabwe’s worsening record. Reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch point to a surge in arbitrary arrests, harassment of civil society, and intimidation of political opponents. Yet the UK, now under Labour, sees Zimbabwe as a key partner in its push for renewable energy and critical minerals — resources vital to its net zero ambitions and to reducing reliance on China.
If the Harare meeting projected warmth, events in London soon painted a contrasting picture. Days later, Zimbabwean activists staged protests outside a hotel where the “First Ladies of Africa for Impact and Resilience” seminar was scheduled. Zimbabwe’s First Lady Auxillia Mnangagwa was meant to attend, though she later cancelled. Demonstrators accused Mnangagwa’s government of political persecution, kleptocracy, and presiding over national collapse.
Activist Dickson Chikwizo was blunt: “This regime thrives on authoritarianism, corruption and repression. It cannot be legitimised with trade deals.”
The protests illustrated Britain’s dilemma: the need to secure minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel for green technology, versus the reputational risks of dealing with leaders widely accused of human rights abuses.
Britain Walks Tightrope as It Warms to Zimbabwe Amid Human Rights Concerns
The UK Government insists it is not blind to Zimbabwe’s democratic backsliding. A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed that Lord Collins raised human rights concerns during discussions with Zimbabwe’s acting foreign minister. However, critics note that the substance of his meeting with Mnangagwa focused almost exclusively on trade and investment.
Knox Chitiyo, an analyst at Chatham House, says London is pursuing pragmatism. “There are still concerns around human rights, around elections. But both sides feel it is more important to manage their differences and consolidate areas of agreement, mainly trade and commerce, to make the relationship work.”
Indeed, signs of rapprochement are clear. In late May, the UK lifted sanctions on Zimbabwe’s state-owned arms manufacturer and four former security chiefs accused of involvement in the killing of 23 protesters during the 2017 coup.
Chitiyo does not expect a significant political backlash in Britain, arguing that Zimbabwean rights activists represent a “small constituency.” Most Zimbabweans in the UK, he says, focus on improving their lives and prefer stable relations between London and Harare, which can affect visas and travel.
Still, risk remains high. Zimbabwe has a reputation for volatile policy shifts, opaque regulations, and centralised decision-making by Zanu-PF elites. “The investment environment is still high-risk,” says Zaynab Hoosen of consultancy Pangea-Risk. “Policy can change abruptly, undermining private investment.”
Despite the challenges, the potential rewards are enormous. Africa holds one-third of the world’s mineral reserves. According to the Atlantic Council, Sub-Saharan Africa could capture $2 trillion of the expected $16 trillion global demand for critical minerals over the next quarter-century.
China moved aggressively more than a decade ago, pouring billions into African mining ventures. Its firms now dominate lithium, cobalt, and copper supply chains across Zimbabwe, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The US has only recently tried to catch up, deploying government-backed financing and deal-making to compete. For Britain, re-engaging Zimbabwe is partly about countering Beijing’s dominance.
Zimbabwe has long leaned on its “Look East” policy, cultivated under Robert Mugabe when Western nations ostracised him over land seizures. Today, it remains one of China’s few “all-weather friends.” Chinese investment has flowed not only into mining, but also infrastructure, agriculture, and energy.
Yet fissures are emerging. Last month, a senior Mnangagwa aide openly criticised Chinese companies for “illicit financial practices” and environmental damage, signalling Harare’s interest in diversifying partnerships. Like many African states, Zimbabwe is also asserting resource nationalism, demanding investors process raw materials locally to capture more value.
This could provide an opening for Britain. “Zimbabwe needs bilateral partners to restructure its debt and diversify away from China,” Hoosen notes. “It’s mutually beneficial for both sides to rekindle ties that have been strained for decades.”
For Britain, the opportunity is tantalising. Access to Zimbabwe’s vast lithium deposits could help fuel its green economy and reduce Chinese dependency. But every step forward risks undermining the UK’s moral authority. Rights groups are watching closely, and Zimbabwe’s diaspora activists are increasingly vocal.
Lord Collins has described Britain’s renewed engagement with Zimbabwe as a “win-win situation.” Yet the road ahead is fraught: activists at home, sceptical investors abroad, and a powerful Chinese rival already entrenched in Harare. The question remains whether London can strike a balance — or whether its pursuit of net zero will come at the expense of its long-claimed values.
Source- Bulawayo24
