If Zimbabwe were truly in a position of strength, would it attract plunderers instead of legitimate investors?

When a country claims it is engaging the world “from a position of strength,” as Foreign Affairs Minister Professor Amon Murwira recently asserted in Dubai on the sidelines of the World Governments Summit, that claim invites scrutiny.

If you value independent, public-interest reporting and want to help keep it alive, please consider supporting my work financially — contact me via WhatsApp at +263 715 667 700 or email mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

Murwira was presenting Zimbabwe as confident, attractive, and ready to partner with the international community.

Such forums are designed for projection — polished narratives aimed at investors, diplomats, and policymakers.

But the critical question for Zimbabweans at home is whether this proclaimed strength reflects reality on the ground.

True strength in international engagement is not measured by summit attendance, photo-ops, or the number of delegations a president leads.

It is measured by the quality of investors a country attracts, the rules under which they operate, and how effectively a nation protects its citizens, laws, environment, and sovereignty.

If we look at Zimbabwe today, an uncomfortable truth emerges: does a country negotiating from a position of strength actually attract investors who respect its laws, its communities, and its resources — or does it draw those who flout regulations, exploit people, and degrade the environment?

Zimbabweans have witnessed numerous cases in which foreign investors — many Chinese, though not exclusively — have violated laws with impunity.

Rivers are polluted, mountains degraded, fertile land stripped, and communities evicted from ancestral lands.

Workers endure unsafe conditions, low or delayed pay, and life-threatening diseases such as silicosis.

This is not about nationality.

Chinese investors operate globally, including in highly regulated economies such as the United Kingdom and Canada.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently engaged Beijing on trade and investment, and Canadian leader Mark Carney has done the same.

Yet in those countries, investors do not dig up ancestral graves, desecrate heritage sites, pollute rivers, or evict citizens from their properties without consequences.

Why?

Because those governments enforce their laws.

They set boundaries and act decisively — that is what engagement from a position of power looks like.

A country that is truly strong does not beg for investors; it selects them.

It does not bend its laws to accommodate capital.

It requires investors to respect its rules.

It does not sacrifice citizens’ rights or environmental integrity for short-term inflows.

Strength means saying: “These are our rules. Follow them, or go elsewhere.”

So when Zimbabwean leaders speak of “win-win engagement” and a “position of strength,” citizens are justified in asking: where is that strength visible on the ground?

Is it visible in communities struggling with polluted water sources?

In clashes between villagers and large foreign mining companies?

In sacred sites allegedly desecrated, or regulatory institutions that appear reactive rather than proactive?

A government negotiating from strength ensures its regulatory institutions are robust, well-resourced, and independent.

It does not create an environment where investors believe they can cut corners.

Investors, whether local or foreign, respond to incentives and enforcement.

If the message is that rules are flexible and penalties rare, the country will naturally attract those willing to exploit gaps.

This is not an anti-investment argument.

Zimbabwe desperately needs capital, technology, and expertise to modernize its economy and create jobs.

But there is a profound difference between productive investment and predatory extraction.

One builds a nation; the other strips it bare.

Zimbabwe is not poor in resources.

It is rich in minerals, fertile land, and human capital.

That wealth should allow the country to negotiate from a position of confidence.

Yet when governance is weak, resources become a curse.

Instead of leverage, they become bait for opportunists.

There is also a credibility gap between rhetoric and reality.

Telling citizens the country is economically confident and globally attractive while unemployment, fragile services, and limited local benefits persist breeds skepticism.

Confidence is not declared; it is demonstrated through outcomes.

Look at how powerful states behave.

They do not pursue a “friend to all, enemy to none” approach at the expense of their own interests.

They prioritize national interest, even if it disappoints some partners.

That is not hostility; that is sovereignty.

If Zimbabwe were genuinely negotiating from strength, investor guidelines would be crystal clear, contracts transparent, environmental enforcement rigorous, and violations punished visibly.

Communities would see tangible benefits — schools, clinics, decent housing, infrastructure, jobs, revenue transparency.

Investors would compete to meet Zimbabwe’s standards, not the other way around.

The deeper issue may be less about foreign investors and more about domestic governance.

Investors operate within the systems they find.

If systems are strong, investors adapt; if weak, some exploit the gaps.

Blaming outsiders alone is too easy and unproductive.

A strong Zimbabwe would not need to declare strength; its institutions, laws, and citizen protections would speak for it.

Its environment would not be collateral damage for development.

Professor Murwira is correct that international engagement should serve national interests.

The real question is whether Zimbabwe is structured to ensure that.

Strength is not about attending global summits; it is about what happens in Mutoko, Marange, Hwange, Redcliff, and countless other communities where the consequences of investment are felt directly.

If the country wants to claim a position of strength, it must build it — through governance, transparency, and enforcement.

Otherwise, the claim risks sounding like a public relations slogan rather than a national reality.

A nation in a position of power does not attract crooks or lawbreakers.

It attracts serious investors who respect its laws because they know those laws will be enforced.

Until Zimbabwe reaches that point, it would be more honest — and more productive — to focus less on declaring strength and more on actually building it.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08