Africa doesn’t need charity — it needs economic justice

Zimbabwe recently did something rare. It turned down health funding from the United States.

As a Zimbabwean activist, I felt proud when my government refused a package worth $367-million after Washington demanded access to critical minerals and sensitive health data.

I felt proud as an African and a fight inequality activist when I learnt about a bold decision by Harare that cited conditions set in the deal as the reason for their refusal. The pan-Africanist in me is always delighted by anything that puts the interests of the mother continent and people first.

But here is what got my interest: US President Donald Trump’s controversial health packages come on the back of the dismantling of USAID, US government withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the championing of “America First” transactional policies that aim to ensure that the US does not give charity without having something in return.

Africa is rich in natural resources. Yet for centuries those resources have been extracted by foreign companies that pay little tax and leave nothing behind. For centuries, Western nations have exploited them by extracting the raw materials without paying fair taxes, and often facilitated by corruption.

This is not accidental. It is part of a global system that has long favoured multinational companies and wealthy nations over African economies. Aid and loans are frequently tied to conditions that open the door for corporations to extract Africa’s minerals and natural resources while the benefits to local communities remain very limited.

I commend the Zimbabwean government for refusing to be swayed by the headline figures and instead examining the fine print. What Zimbabwe found was exploitative and extractive clauses hidden in the health package.

The question now is: Why did 16 other African countries that signed similar agreements accept them? Did they negotiate better terms, or were they faced with the same conditions? What Washington is proposing follows a familiar pattern of neocolonialism: offering assistance with one hand while seeking control of resources with the other.

Extractive patterns

If these deals exchange public resources for short-term funding, they risk deepening the same extractive patterns Africa has faced for decades. Africa holds roughly 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves, which are valued in the tens of trillions of dollars. Yet the continent loses between $50-billion and $90-billion each year through corruption, tax dodging and unfair trade practices.

The continent ranks as one of the most unequal in the world, with profound impacts on healthcare access and quality. Countries with IMF loans continue to cut or cap vital investments in health, education and social protection. And inadequate public funding pushes the poor to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which excludes the vast majority, forcing them into a health and poverty cycle.

African countries must therefore not continue to lose their precious minerals and natural resources in exchange for aid or through unfair trade and exploitative tax regimes. The continent must use the resources to uplift people's lives by investing in public goods and services.

With resources like these, the question is not whether Africa needs more aid, but whether it needs fair trade rules and progressive tax systems that allow the continent to benefit from its own wealth.

Only six African countries consistently meet the Abuja Declaration target of allocating 15% of national budgets to health. At the same time, many governments spend more servicing debt than funding healthcare, education and social protection combined.

Scrapping illegitimate debt and letting communities decide through free, prior and informed consent on how to use their natural resources will help generate revenue that must be invested in public services and goods, including healthcare. African countries must also challenge and do away with rigged trade economic systems and deals written by the elite for the 1% to realise more from precious minerals and natural resources through progressive taxation and fair trade.

Harare deserves credit for showing that African governments can refuse deals that do not serve their national interests. It is not too late for the other African countries to cancel similar colonial and exploitative agreements. The continent’s natural resources, agriculture and tourism have the potential to generate the revenue needed to fund healthcare, education and social protection for its people.

We need economic systems that work for the vast majority of the African population, not just a small group of elites, billionaires and multinational corporations. African leaders should look carefully at the conditions attached to these health packages and refuse deals that undermine the continent’s long-term interests. DM

Nqobizitha Mlambo is the national coordinator for the Fight Inequality Alliance Zimbabwe.