Home Blog Page 3

Europe Must Not Sleepwalk into Another American War

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Europe Must Not Sleepwalk into Another American War

Europe is once again standing at the edge of a conflict it did not choose, cannot control, and will ultimately pay for. The escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran bears all the hallmarks of a familiar disaster. For NATO governments, this is the moment to stop reacting and start deciding.

The language coming from Donald Trump is not diplomatic signalling. It is pre-war escalation. Public ultimatums, talk of “massive armadas”, and warnings that “time is running out” are not tools of negotiation. They are the final steps in manufacturing consent for force.

Europe has seen this movie before.

In 2003, allies were told that Iraq posed an urgent and intolerable threat. Military build-ups were framed as leverage for diplomacy. War was sold as a last resort. Once the first strikes landed, the logic of alliance loyalty took over, and European governments found themselves complicit in a conflict that reshaped global politics for a generation.

Iran is not Iraq. It is larger, more cohesive, and embedded across the Middle East through economic, political, and military networks. Any US strike, however “limited”, will trigger retaliation that cannot be geographically contained. Shipping lanes, energy infrastructure, regional capitals, and US bases will all become potential flashpoints. At that point, the war will no longer belong to Washington alone.

For NATO, the danger is structural. Even without a formal Article 5 invocation, European allies will be drawn in through basing agreements, intelligence sharing, air defence support, naval escorts, and logistical integration. These roles are always described as defensive. They never remain so. Once European forces are embedded, political autonomy collapses under the weight of alliance expectations.

This conflict, if it comes, will outlive any single presidency. Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It only needs to prolong instability long enough to exhaust political will and fracture alliances. Europe will bear the economic and security consequences long after the original decision-makers have left office.

The economic risks alone should give pause. A war in the Gulf would send energy prices soaring, disrupt global trade, and deepen economic stress across Europe at a moment of already fragile growth. Inflation, supply chain shocks, and market volatility would hit European households immediately. The Global South would suffer even more severely, amplifying migration pressures and regional instability that Europe would then be expected to manage.

None of this is inevitable.

Iran has signalled willingness to engage in dialogue. Regional actors are desperate to avoid escalation. What is missing is not an off-ramp, but restraint. And restraint cannot come solely from Washington.

NATO governments must ask themselves a hard question. Is alliance loyalty compatible with strategic blindness? Or does loyalty sometimes require saying no, early and clearly, before momentum becomes destiny?

Europe’s security interests are not identical to those of the United States. They never have been. Treating them as interchangeable has repeatedly led Europe into wars that undermine its own stability, credibility, and economic resilience. That mistake cannot be repeated.

This is not a call to abandon alliances. It is a call to act like adults within them.

European governments should insist on diplomacy over coercion, de-escalation over spectacle, and collective restraint over unilateral action. They should make clear that NATO is a defensive alliance, not a blank cheque for wars of choice. Silence now will be read as consent later.

History will not be kind to those who claim they had no choice. There is still a choice. But the window is closing.

Europe must decide whether it will once again be dragged into a war it neither wants nor controls, or whether it will finally assert that alliance does not mean obedience.

The time for private unease has passed. This is the moment for public clarity.

What Zimbabwe Would Need to Fix Before BRICS Actually Mattered

Samuel Musarika
-
0
What Zimbabwe Would Need to Fix Before BRICS Actually Mattered

Let us imagine a counterfactual Zimbabwe: a country that joins BRICS and actually benefits. Not in speeches, not in newspaper headlines, not as a diplomatic trophy, but in the lives of ordinary people. What would have to be true for that to happen?

Quite a lot.

Because BRICS cannot fix a country. At best, it can amplify what already works. For Zimbabwe, the hard truth is that too little currently works well enough to be amplified.

Predictable rules, not clever announcements

BRICS would only matter if Zimbabwe became a place where policy is stable and predictable. Investors and trading partners do not commit to economies where rules change overnight, where regulations are selectively applied, or where currency policy turns into emergency improvisation. Zimbabwe does not need more economic “plans”. It needs fewer surprises.

Credible institutions that are bigger than personalities

A country cannot bargain confidently in international blocs when its own institutions are distrusted at home. Zimbabwe would need a civil service that functions professionally, regulators that are not captured by patronage, and a judiciary that is seen as independent. BRICS partners may not lecture about governance, but they price it into every deal.

A productive economy that can actually trade

BRICS is not charity. It is trade, leverage and exchange. Zimbabwe would need to expand what it produces beyond raw exports and informal hustle. If you cannot manufacture competitively, process locally, and export value-added goods, membership simply turns you into a market for other people’s products.

To benefit from BRICS, Zimbabwe would need:

  • Revived industry and reliable electricity
  • Predictable access to foreign currency for inputs
  • Functioning logistics and rail, not only roads and border queues
  • An export strategy that goes beyond minerals and tobacco

Clean procurement and a war on tenderpreneurship

No bloc can help a country where big deals are structured for insiders. Zimbabwe would need to fix procurement, end opaque contracting, and stop treating state tenders as political rewards. Otherwise, BRICS-linked projects would simply become new feeding troughs, not development.

A currency system people trust

If Zimbabwe wants to ride BRICS discussions on de-dollarisation, it must first earn domestic credibility. That means a central bank that is transparent about reserves, disciplined about money creation and honest about the true state of liquidity.

A gold-backed currency only matters if the backing is verifiable, protected and not quietly mortgaged away.

Human capital retained, not exported

Zimbabwe’s biggest loss is not capital flight. It is people flight. Skills have left at scale, and those remaining are often stuck in survival economics rather than innovation. For BRICS to matter, Zimbabwe would need to rebuild a labour market that rewards skill, protects workers and creates upward mobility.

Otherwise, Zimbabwe will keep exporting nurses, teachers and engineers while importing finished goods.

Real accountability, not selective discipline

The final condition is the hardest. Zimbabwe would need accountability that applies to everyone, not only to those who fall out of favour. Without accountability, every advantage offered by BRICS becomes another opportunity for looting, and every “partnership” becomes another PR exercise.

So what would BRICS look like in a fixed Zimbabwe?

In a functional Zimbabwe, BRICS could matter in practical ways:

  • Access to development finance that actually builds productive capacity
  • Structured trade deals that increase exports, not just imports
  • Technology transfer tied to manufacturing and skills
  • Infrastructure projects delivered on time and maintained
  • Payment systems that reduce reliance on the dollar without collapsing confidence

But in the Zimbabwe we currently have, BRICS risks becoming what many other initiatives have become: diplomatic theatre layered on top of unresolved domestic dysfunction.

The counterfactual is not fantasy. It is a checklist.

Zimbabwe does not need BRICS first.
Zimbabwe needs to fix itself first.

Then, and only then, BRICS would stop being a badge and start being a tool.

Why Joining BRICS Will Not Fix Zimbabwe’s Problems

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Why Joining BRICS Will Not Fix Zimbabwe’s Problems

There is a growing narrative that Zimbabwe’s push to join BRICS represents a strategic economic pivot, driven in part by deteriorating relations with the West under Donald Trump’s hardline trade and visa policies. On paper, it sounds bold. In reality, it risks becoming another distraction from Zimbabwe’s real crisis.

Zimbabwe does not suffer from a lack of international partners. It suffers from poor governance.

The country already trades with China, South Africa, Russia, the UAE and others within or aligned to BRICS. Membership does not magically unlock markets that are currently closed. Zimbabwean goods are not failing to sell because of diplomatic exclusion. They are failing because of low productivity, weak competitiveness, inconsistent policy and chronic mismanagement.

BRICS is not an economic rescue package. It is a geopolitical club.

For countries with strong institutions, industrial capacity and export strength, BRICS offers leverage and optionality. For weak states, it offers symbolism and very little else. Zimbabwe risks mistaking alignment for advancement.

The argument that BRICS membership will attract foreign direct investment assumes investors are waiting for a badge rather than reforms. They are not. Investors look for predictable policy, enforceable contracts, independent courts and credible regulation. Zimbabwe currently struggles on all four fronts.

No multilateral bloc can compensate for that.

There is also a deeper danger rarely discussed. Zimbabwe’s integration into blocs like BRICS could further entrench its role as a passive consumer rather than an active producer. Without industrial revival, Zimbabwe risks becoming a dumping ground for cheap manufactured goods from better-managed economies within the bloc, while exporting raw materials at minimal value.

That is not development.
It is dependency with new branding.

The enthusiasm around de-dollarisation follows a similar pattern. Trading outside the US dollar sounds appealing politically, but currency sovereignty only works when supported by disciplined fiscal policy and public trust. Zimbabwe’s currency history is a catalogue of broken confidence, not because of sanctions or dollar dominance, but because of reckless domestic decisions.

The ZiG may be more stable than past experiments, but its long-term success will not be decided in Moscow, Beijing or Pretoria. It will be decided in Harare, by whether authorities resist the temptation to print, manipulate and interfere.

The fixation on BRICS also reflects a dangerous externalisation of blame. It implies Zimbabwe’s stagnation is primarily the result of Western hostility, rather than domestic failure. That narrative absolves those in power while changing nothing for ordinary citizens.

Zimbabwe’s most valuable resource is not gold, lithium or land.
It is its people.

And that resource has been systematically wasted through poor education outcomes, mass emigration, informalisation and political exclusion. No global bloc can fix that.

If Zimbabwe joined BRICS tomorrow, poverty would not disappear. Wages would not rise. Hospitals would not function better. Corruption would not evaporate. What would change is the rhetoric, not the reality.

True economic recovery will not come from choosing sides in global power struggles. It will come from boring, unglamorous work: rebuilding institutions, restoring trust, enforcing accountability and allowing talent to thrive.

Until that happens, BRICS membership will remain what it currently is for Zimbabwe:
a badge to brag about, with little benefit for the people who need change the most.

斯塔默的访华之行不是投降，而是一次现实检验

Samuel Musarika
-
0
斯塔默的访华之行不是投降，而是一次现实检验

英国首相基尔·斯塔默即将访问中国，此举立刻引发了英国保守党的熟悉反应。他们毫不意外地将这次访问描述为“投降”，并称其对国家安全构成威胁。这种说法不仅懒惰，而且越来越脱离英国乃至世界所面临的现实。

我不是情报官员，但判断国际安全的主要威胁并不需要接触机密文件。对任何理性观察者来说，当今对国际稳定造成最大破坏的，并不是北京，而是唐纳德·特朗普。他公开蔑视盟友、国际法以及多边机构，其对全球秩序造成的破坏，远远超过任何一次与中国的外交接触。

斯塔默此行，标志着英国政府试图重塑对华关系的最重要时刻。财政大臣、副首相以及商务大臣此前都已访华，如今轮到首相亲自出面。这种顺序本身就释放了一个清晰信号：这是战略调整，而非软弱退让。

斯塔默毫不掩饰他对历届保守党政府的失望，他称这些政府在对华问题上的做法是“失职行为”。在其他西方主要经济体持续与北京保持接触的同时，英国却选择了自我孤立。加拿大总理去了，法国总统去了，而英国却逐渐成为同类国家中的“异类”。

这不是原则性的强硬，而是意识形态造成的瘫痪。

此次随行的英国代表团规模庞大，涵盖商业、工业和文化领域，包括巴克莱银行、捷豹路虎以及皇家莎士比亚剧团。这并非象征性的访问，而是一种明确表态：英国清楚二十一世纪的经济重心在哪里。

斯塔默的核心论点十分直接：中国是世界上最大的经济体之一，与中国建立稳定且具有战略性的关系，符合英国的国家利益。这并不意味着天真，而意味着清醒。

更重要的是，只有通过接触，敏感议题才有被提出的可能。人权问题并不会因为拒绝对话而得到改善。关闭沟通渠道只会满足国内的政治表演，却无法真正帮助任何人。持续而直接的外交，才是唯一现实的途径。

保守党的反驳主要集中在伦敦市中心批准建设新的中国大型使馆一事，并将其渲染为国家安全威胁。这种说法站不住脚。外交本质上就意味着存在。如果把设立使馆都视为“投降”，那伦敦恐怕要连夜关闭一半的外国使馆。

这种批评真正反映的，是一种过时的世界观：认为英国的安全和繁荣只能依附于所谓的“英美特殊关系”。这种假设正在迅速失效。一个公开质疑北约、对威权政治暧昧不清、并将盟友关系视为交易筹码的美国，已经不再是可靠的战略支柱。

如果英国执意快速走向无关紧要，它完全可以继续抱紧这种幻想。但如果它希望在世界上发挥作用，就必须承认世界已经改变。

重新建立对华关系，还能打开更广阔的大门。许多前英国殖民地，包括津巴布韦，近年来已明显“向东看”，在投资、基础设施和贸易方面加强与亚洲的联系。如果英国只把自己定位为西方体系的附属品，它的全球影响力只会进一步萎缩。与中国接触，反而能为英国重新进入这些地区创造直接或间接的通道。

这并不是在中国和美国之间“二选一”。这是拒绝被虚假的二元对立所困。成熟的国家会建立多重伙伴关系，会对冲风险，会根据自身利益调整战略，而不是把国家前途外包给一个自身方向正在动摇的盟友。

把这次访问称为“投降”，暴露的不是战略洞察力，而是想象力和领导力的匮乏。斯塔默的访华之行并非国家安全的威胁，它只是承认一个事实：在一个已经发生变化的世界里，英国无法再依赖意识形态怀旧来制定外交政策。

真正的危险，不是与中国接触，而是把孤立误认为力量，把忠诚误认为战略。

Starmer’s China Trip Is Not a Surrender. It Is a Reality Check

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Starmer’s China Trip Is Not a Surrender. It Is a Reality Check

Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to China has triggered a familiar reaction from the Conservatives. Predictably, they have framed the trip as a surrender and a threat to national security. This language is not only lazy, it is increasingly detached from the realities facing Britain and the wider world.

I am not an intelligence officer. But it does not require access to classified briefings to see where the most immediate threat to international stability lies. It is not Beijing. It is Donald Trump, whose open contempt for allies, international law, and multilateral institutions has done more to undermine global security than any diplomatic visit to China ever could.

Starmer’s trip marks the most important moment yet in the government’s attempt to reset the UK’s relationship with China. The chancellor, the deputy prime minister, and the business secretary have already been. Now it is the prime minister’s turn. That sequencing matters. It signals intent, not weakness.

Starmer has been clear about his frustration with what he describes as a “dereliction of duty” by recent Conservative governments in effectively shutting Britain out of Beijing. While other comparable Western economies have maintained strategic engagement, the UK chose self imposed isolation. The Canadian prime minister has been. The French president has been. Britain, by contrast, became an outlier.

That was not principled realism. It was ideological paralysis.

Dozens of British organisations are represented on this visit, spanning corporate, industrial, and cultural life. They include Barclays, Jaguar Land Rover, and the Royal Shakespeare Company. This is not a symbolic delegation. It is a statement that Britain understands where economic gravity lies in the twenty first century.

Starmer’s core argument is straightforward. China is one of the world’s largest economic players. A strategic and consistent relationship with Beijing is therefore in Britain’s national interest. That does not require naivety. It requires coherence.

Crucially, engagement is also how difficult issues are raised. Human rights are not defended through silence or absence. They are defended through sustained, direct diplomacy. Shutting doors may satisfy domestic posturing, but it achieves nothing for those on the receiving end of abuses.

The Conservative counterargument centres on the recent approval of a new Chinese mega embassy in central London, which they cite as evidence of a security threat. This is thin gruel. Diplomacy by its nature involves presence. If embassies are treated as capitulation, then Britain should close half of London overnight.

What this criticism really reflects is an outdated worldview. One in which Britain’s security and prosperity are imagined as inseparable from the so called “special relationship” with the United States. That assumption is becoming increasingly untenable. An America that openly questions NATO, flirts with authoritarianism, and treats alliances as transactional is not a reliable foundation on which to build a future.

If Britain wants to fast remain irrelevant, it can cling to that illusion. Or it can recognise that the world has changed.

A renewed relationship with China also opens doors far beyond Beijing. Many former British colonies, including Zimbabwe, have increasingly looked east for investment, infrastructure, and trade. Britain positioning itself solely as a Western appendage limits its reach. Engaging China creates indirect and direct pathways back into regions the UK claims to care about but has largely abandoned.

This is not about choosing China over the United States. It is about refusing to be trapped by a false binary. Mature states pursue multiple partnerships. They hedge. They adapt. They act in their own interest rather than outsourcing it to allies whose priorities are drifting elsewhere.

Calling this “surrender” is a failure of imagination and leadership. Starmer’s visit is not a threat to national security. It is an acknowledgement that Britain cannot afford ideological nostalgia in a world that has already moved on.

The real danger is not engagement with China. It is mistaking isolation for strength, and loyalty for strategy.

Why Trump’s ‘White Farmer Refugees’ Narrative May Accidentally Help South Africa

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Why Trump’s ‘White Farmer Refugees’ Narrative May Accidentally Help South Africa

A question South Africans are constantly asked, often by outsiders, is whether the country will ever “do a Zimbabwe” on land. The honest answer, from everything history has taught us, is no. Not because land reform is unnecessary, but because South Africa has seen exactly how quickly disorder invites sanctions, capital flight and economic collapse.

South Africa wants land reform. It knows it needs land reform. But it also knows that chaotic land seizures are a fast track to international isolation. That is why reform has been slow, legalistic and, to many, frustratingly incremental.

There is crime and lawlessness in rural South Africa, but it is not the racial cartoon presented by sections of the Trump media. Farm attacks affect both white and black farmers. Violence in rural areas is part of a broader crime crisis, not a racial extermination project. That nuance is deliberately erased because it does not serve the narrative.

The obsession is not with human life.
It is with white life.

And yet, buried inside this racially charged propaganda is an unintended consequence that may actually benefit South Africa.

By openly inviting white South African farmers to relocate to the United States of America, Donald Trump may have handed South Africa a pressure-release valve it never formally asked for.

If white farmers want to leave, why stop them?

From a purely strategic standpoint, voluntary exit is the cleanest form of land redistribution. No invasions. No violence. No court battles. No international backlash. Just transfer and transition.

What is rarely acknowledged is that many of the farmers leaving are not the large-scale, highly productive commercial giants that dominate media imagery. They are often smaller landholders, underutilising land, sitting on inherited property, or farming at marginal productivity levels. This was also true in Zimbabwe, though the myth persists that every white farmer was a paragon of efficiency and national importance.

Land ownership does not automatically equal productivity.

The media prefers simple heroes and villains, but reality is messier. In both Zimbabwe and South Africa, there have always been farmers sitting on land without meaningful output. That does not justify violence or theft, but it does complicate the moral story.

If South Africa were tactically clever, it would not panic about Trump’s refugee rhetoric. It would quietly let the door swing open.

Encourage voluntary sales.
Offer fair, transparent compensation.
Provide relocation support if necessary.
Let those who feel unwanted or unsafe leave with dignity.

That is not persecution. That is choice.

Land inequality in Africa is real. It is the direct result of colonial dispossession. The uncomfortable truth is that there is no perfect way to correct a historical injustice without upsetting someone in the present. The challenge is to reduce harm while restoring balance.

Violence is the worst option.
Denial is the laziest option.
Voluntary transition may be the least damaging option.

South Africa’s strength, unlike Zimbabwe’s at the time, is that it still has functioning institutions, access to capital and global legitimacy. It does not need to rush. It does not need to burn bridges. And it certainly does not need to perform land reform for Western approval.

If some farmers genuinely believe their future lies in America, let them go. The United States has land. It has subsidies. It has protections. What it does not have is cheap, exploitable labour and weak regulation, which may explain why only certain farmers are interested in leaving.

The real question is not whether land reform can be fair.
It is whether it can be honest.

And honesty begins by admitting that land ownership, productivity, race and justice are far more complex than the slogans sold by foreign politicians with no stake in Africa’s future.

History has already shown South Africa what not to do.

The challenge now is figuring out what to do without pretending the problem does not exist.

Fuel Tanker Inferno Rocks Bulawayo as Suspected Siphoning Incident Goes Wrong

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Fuel Tanker Inferno Rocks Bulawayo as Suspected Siphoning Incident Goes Wrong

A massive fireball lit up the night sky in Bulawayo on Monday after two fuel tankers caught fire in the Donnington Industrial Area, triggering loud explosions that were felt across several surrounding suburbs.

The incident occurred along Goderich Avenue near Masiyephambili Road, close to a service station, where the two tankers, both reportedly carrying fuel, were engulfed in flames. While no fatalities have been reported, the blaze caused widespread alarm and significant damage in the area.

Bulawayo’s Chief Fire Officer, Mhlangano Moyo, confirmed that emergency services were deployed for several hours as firefighters worked to contain the inferno and prevent it from spreading to nearby structures.

Fire crews described the scene as extremely dangerous, with repeated explosions complicating containment efforts. Multiple fire tenders were dispatched as authorities struggled to bring the fire under control late into the night.

Although investigations are still underway, early indications suggest the incident may be linked to illegal fuel siphoning, a practice that has become increasingly common amid fuel shortages and economic pressure. Authorities have not yet confirmed the cause, but sources at the scene indicated that the fire may have started during an unauthorised attempt to extract fuel from one of the tankers.

Residents in Tshabalala, Nketa and Bellevue reported hearing powerful blasts, with some describing the shockwaves as resembling a minor earthquake. People living closer to the industrial area said windows were shattered by the force of the explosions, sending many into the streets in panic.

The incident has once again highlighted the growing risks associated with fuel theft and informal fuel handling, particularly in industrial zones close to residential areas. Fuel-related fires have proven especially difficult to control due to the volatility of petroleum products and the limited capacity of municipal emergency services.

Authorities have urged the public to stay clear of the affected area as investigations continue and damage assessments are carried out.

Stability Without Growth Is Not Recovery

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Stability Without Growth Is Not Recovery

Zimbabwe’s economic managers are once again pointing to “stability” as evidence of progress. Inflation is down. The currency is described as steady. The numbers, on paper, look calm. But stability without growth is not recovery. It is a pause in decline, not a return to health.

Economic recovery is not defined by charts flattening out. It is defined by expansion. Jobs. Investment. Rising incomes. Productivity. Confidence. Without these, stability becomes cosmetic, useful only for press statements and donor briefings.

Zimbabwe today is stable in the narrowest possible sense. Prices are not accelerating at the catastrophic rates seen in previous years, but that is largely because the economy has been compressed to the point where most people simply cannot spend. Demand has been choked. Consumption has been forced down. Inflation falls naturally when people are priced out of markets.

This is not policy success. It is economic exhaustion.

True growth requires engines that Zimbabwe currently lacks. Formal employment continues to shrink. Industry remains under-capitalised. Power supply is unreliable. Infrastructure is decaying. Investor confidence is weak and legal certainty remains elusive. In such an environment, stability merely locks in underperformance.

The informal economy now carries the weight of the country. Millions survive through vending, piecework and cross-border trade. These activities keep households alive but do not generate taxable revenue, productivity gains or sustainable development. An economy dominated by survivalism cannot grow in any meaningful sense.

There is also a dangerous political comfort in stability. A stagnant economy is easier to manage than a growing one. It creates fewer expectations, fewer demands and less pressure for reform. Stability becomes a tool for control rather than a stepping stone to progress.

This is where the distinction matters. Recovery implies momentum. Stability implies restraint. Zimbabwe has mistaken the absence of collapse for improvement.

Growth also requires trust. Businesses invest when contracts are enforceable, policies are predictable and institutions are independent. Without these foundations, capital stays away or remains short-term and extractive. Stability alone cannot compensate for institutional weakness.

The result is an economy trapped in a low-energy equilibrium. It is not falling apart at high speed, but it is not moving forward either. Young people see no future. Skilled workers leave. Those who remain adapt to survival, not ambition.

Zimbabwe does not need celebration of statistical calm. It needs honest recognition that stability is only the beginning, not the destination. Without deliberate efforts to restore growth, diversify production and rebuild confidence, stability simply becomes a holding pattern.

A country cannot spreadsheet its way out of poverty.
It must grow its way out.

Until growth returns, stability will remain what it currently is: a reassuring word masking a deeply uncomfortable reality.

Single-Digit Inflation, Mass Poverty: Zimbabwe’s Paper Economics Meets Hard Reality

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Single-Digit Inflation, Mass Poverty: Zimbabwe’s Paper Economics Meets Hard Reality

Zimbabwe is being told to celebrate. According to the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, annual inflation has fallen to 4.1%, the lowest level recorded since the late 1990s. On paper, it is an extraordinary turnaround. On the ground, it is almost meaningless.

At a time when poverty is visibly deepening, households are shrinking meals, and informal survival has become the default economic model, claims of price stability feel detached from everyday life. This is not an emotional reaction. It is a credibility problem.

Inflation statistics do not exist in a vacuum. They are meant to describe lived economic conditions. When those conditions visibly contradict the numbers, scepticism is not only justified, it is necessary.

The official explanation is neat. Zimstat reports zero month-on-month inflation in January 2026 and sharp declines in both ZWG and USD inflation. Prices, according to the Consumer Price Index, have essentially stabilised. But stability relative to what baseline, and for whom?

Zimbabwe’s economy is not a normal, wage-based economy. Most people do not earn formal salaries adjusted annually or indexed to inflation. Income is irregular, informal and often declining in real terms. In such an environment, low inflation does not translate into affordability. It simply means prices are no longer rising as fast, not that people can afford them.

The poverty data quietly embedded in the same report tells a very different story.

Zimstat places the Food Poverty Line at ZWG 895 per person per month and the Total Consumption Poverty Line at ZWG 1,307. That figure represents the minimum income required not to be deemed poor. The question that immediately follows is obvious: how many Zimbabweans are earning that consistently, legally and in cash?

The answer is deeply uncomfortable.

What this exposes is the growing gap between macroeconomic presentation and social reality. Finance minister Mthuli Ncube has built his economic narrative around stabilisation, discipline and statistical improvement. In technical terms, he may even be correct. Inflation can be suppressed through currency controls, demand compression and restricted liquidity.

But suppression is not recovery.

Low inflation achieved by shrinking consumption, limiting money supply and pricing people out of markets is not economic success. It is economic paralysis. When people stop buying not because prices are fair but because incomes have collapsed, inflation falls by default.

That is not stability.
It is stagnation.

There is also a trust issue. Zimbabwe has a long history of statistical manipulation, selective measurement and methodological opacity. While Zimstat may not be fabricating figures outright, the assumptions behind the CPI basket, the weighting of goods, and the exclusion of informal market realities all shape outcomes in politically convenient ways.

Paper economics can always be made to look tidy. Real economies are messy, unequal and unforgiving.

If inflation were genuinely under control in a meaningful way, we would expect to see secondary indicators improve: reduced food insecurity, rising disposable income, declining informalisation and improved service delivery. None of these are happening at scale.

Instead, the economy remains survivalist. People are not budgeting. They are coping.

Zimbabwe does not suffer from a lack of statistics. It suffers from a lack of trust between numbers and experience. Until official data begins to reflect how people actually live, not how spreadsheets behave, claims of progress will continue to ring hollow.

Low inflation in a poor country is not automatically good news. Sometimes, it is simply evidence that the economy has stopped breathing.

And Zimbabweans can feel that far more clearly than any CPI chart suggests.

Gold tops $5,000 for first time ever, adding to historic rally

Samuel Musarika
-
0
Gold tops $5,000 for first time ever, adding to historic rally

The price of gold has risen above $5,000 (£3,659) an ounce for the first time ever, extending a historic rally that saw the precious metal jump by more than 60% last year.

Gold’s value has soared as tensions heightened between the US and Nato over Greenland, adding to growing concerns about financial and geopolitical uncertainty.

US President Donald Trump’s trade policies also continue to worry markets.

While he last week withdrew import taxes on countries linked to the Greenland row, on Saturday he threatened to impose a 100% tariff on Canada if it strikes a trade deal with China.

Gold and other precious metals are seen as so-called safe-haven assets that investors buy in times of turmoil.

On Friday, silver topped $100 an ounce for the first time, building on its almost 150% rise last year.

Demand for precious metals has also been driven by a range of other factors including higher-than-usual inflation, a weak US dollar and buying by central banks around the world.

In addition, the US Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates again this year.

Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as Washington seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, have also fuelled the price of the precious metal.

One of the biggest appeals of gold is its relative scarcity. Only around 216,265 tonnes of the metal have ever been mined, according to the World Gold Council trade association.

That’s enough to fill between three to four Olympic-sized swimming pools. The majority of that was only extracted from the earth since 1950, as mining technology advanced and new deposits were discovered.

The US Geological Survey estimates that another 64,000 tonnes of gold can still be mined from underground reserves, although the supply is predicted to plateau in the coming years.

“When you own gold, it’s not attached to the debt of somebody else like a bond is or an equity where the performance of a company will drive performance,” said Nicholas Frappell, global head of institutional markets at ABC Refinery.

“It’s a really good diversifier in a very uncertain world,” he added.

“People go to gold”

Gold saw a blockbuster year in 2025, with its biggest annual gain since 1979 as investors flocked to precious metals.

With financial markets spooked by concerns including Trump’s tariffs and fears that artificial intelligence-related stocks are overpriced, gold repeatedly hit new record highs.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, an investment platform for the wealthy, said gold “seems to know no bounds” amid ongoing political uncertainty.

“The pile on into the gilded safe haven is continuing with the precious metal racing up higher,” she said.

Streeter pointed to trade tension sparked by Trump’s tariff threat against Canada, saying it had “unnerved investors”.

While economic concerns can help push up the price of gold, it also tends to rise when investors expect interest rates to be cut.

Lower rates typically mean smaller returns for investments such as bonds, so investors look to assets like gold and silver.

The US Federal Reserve is widely expected to cut its main interest rate twice this year.

“It’s inversely correlated because the opportunity cost of keeping the money in a [government bond] is really not worth it anymore, so people go to gold,” said Ahmad Assiri, Research Strategist at Pepperstone.

It’s not just investors who have been buying up gold.

Last year, central banks added hundreds of tonnes of bullion to their reserves, according to the World Gold Council.

“There’s a very clear shift away from the US dollar, which is benefiting gold immensely,” said Kavalis.

The start of this year has seen gold continue to rally but Frappell warns the “news-driven” market could also result in a fall in its price.

“There’s got to be scope for unexpected news that actually might be positive for the world and not necessarily positive for gold,” he said.

But not everybody is buying gold for purely investment reasons.

In many cultures, the metal is purchased during festivals or given as gifts at celebrations such as weddings.

In India, the annual Diwali festival is believed to be an auspicious occasion to buy precious metals in order to bring on wealth and luck.

According to the US investment bank Morgan Stanley, Indian households held $3.8tn of gold, equivalent to 88.8% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Neighbouring China is the world’s largest single consumer market for gold, with many believing that buying it brings good fortune.

“We often see a seasonal uptick in demand around Chinese New Year, which we are seeing at the moment to an extent,” said Kavalis, referencing the upcoming Year of the Horse, which begins in February.

Source: BBC News

1234...333Page 3 of 333