Additional Coverage:
Zambia Condemns U.S. Tying Health Aid to Mineral Access Amid Rising Diplomatic Strains
HARARE, Zimbabwe – Zambia has publicly accused the United States of conditioning a $2 billion health assistance package on access to the country’s valuable mineral resources. The southern African nation’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mulambo Haimbe, sharply criticized outgoing U.S. Ambassador Michael Gonzales’ allegations of corruption as “mischievous” and “undiplomatic,” exposing deepening tensions over Washington’s evolving Africa policy.
The dispute reflects the broader impact of President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach, which has shifted U.S. aid strategies toward transactional agreements that link financial support to strategic interests. Several African leaders and health experts have voiced concerns over demands for sensitive health data in exchange for aid, particularly as the Trump administration reduces traditional foreign assistance.
Zambia, rich in minerals vital for global green energy technologies such as solar panels and electric vehicle batteries, is at the center of this geopolitical contest. The U.S. is increasingly positioning itself against China, a dominant investor in Zambia and across Africa.
Negotiations Stall Over Data Sharing and Mineral Access
Minister Haimbe condemned Ambassador Gonzales’ remarks accusing Zambian officials of corruption and stalled negotiations, describing them as “deeply regrettable” and contrary to mutual respect. He further accused the U.S. of linking mineral access to the finalization of the health aid deal-a claim the ambassador dismissed as “disgusting” and “patently false.”
Discussions have been ongoing for months. Gonzales previously accused Zambian leaders of misappropriating funds and ignoring U.S. efforts to finalize a new agreement. However, Haimbe stated that negotiations are at an impasse due to “unacceptable” U.S. demands for health data sharing that violate privacy rights, coupled with requests for preferential treatment of American companies in mining contracts.
“Zambia insists its citizens must have a say in how critical minerals are utilized, and no single partner should receive preferential treatment,” Haimbe emphasized. The U.S. Embassy has not issued an immediate response.
U.S. Seeks to Shift Aid Toward Self-Reliance and Strategic Gains
The new U.S. approach replaces previous frameworks led by USAID and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Instead, Washington is pursuing bilateral agreements that condition funding on factors including commercial terms, domestic financing, disease surveillance, pathogen sharing, and even religious considerations.
Since late 2024, the U.S. has signed deals with around 30 countries, many in Africa, aiming to reduce reliance on donor aid, promote local ownership, and protect American interests amid growing Chinese influence.
However, this approach has met resistance. Ghana recently rejected a proposed agreement due to broad data access provisions lacking safeguards.
Zimbabwe withdrew from a $367 million package over similar concerns, while Kenya’s $2.5 billion deal faces a court challenge over data privacy issues. Lesotho secured a reduced agreement after initially facing U.S. demands for 25 years of health data access.
Health Experts Raise Concerns Over One-Way Data Flow
Critics argue the data-sharing demands predominantly benefit the U.S., with information flowing largely in one direction. The new bilateral arrangements bypass the World Health Organization, from which the U.S. withdrew earlier this year, and which currently manages global disease outbreak reporting and vaccine equity negotiations.
“This method seeks direct insight into disease trends but operates very differently from established multilateral channels,” noted Jen Kates, senior vice president at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
Health advocates warn such moves risk fragmenting the global health system. Zimbabwe ended talks partly because the U.S. did not guarantee access to resulting medical innovations, such as vaccines or treatments.
“The question of who truly benefits is critical,” said Atilla Kisla of the Southern Africa Litigation Center, referencing the COVID-19 pandemic, when African nations contributed data but were often last to receive vaccines.
Calls for Transparency and Caution Against Using Health as Leverage
The secrecy surrounding these agreements has drawn criticism for limiting public oversight. “Lack of transparency undermines accountability and evaluation,” said Asia Russell of advocacy group Health GAP. “PEPFAR’s success was built on openness, now diminished under this new approach.”
Financially, many deals offer reduced funding compared to previous aid levels and impose conditions requiring increased domestic health spending, placing additional strain on already burdened systems.
Observers warn that blending health aid with commercial and political objectives risks compromising global health security. “When health becomes a bargaining chip, everyone’s safety is at risk,” Russell cautioned.
As Zambia and other nations navigate these complex negotiations, the evolving U.S. strategy marks a significant shift in international aid dynamics and raises pressing questions about the future of global health partnerships.
The Associated Press receives funding from the Gates Foundation to support global health and development reporting in Africa. The AP maintains full editorial independence.