CHAIRMAN Herbert Chitepo’s prophetic and unwavering declaration in Australia on July 17 1973, that Zimbabwe’s war of liberation was not only against racism but also a fierce struggle against imperialistic exploitation remains profoundly relevant today. His words illuminate many of Zimbabwe’s economic challenges in its quest to fully empower its citizens. Chairman Chitepo asserted that the war was designed to dismantle a system that granted privilege to whites who had failed to attain such status in their own countries of origin.

In reality, this colonial enterprise was nothing more than an elaborate looting operation, one that fuelled the prosperity of Western capitals and their citizens at the expense of Zimbabwe’s indigenous population. It was a calculated manoeuvre designed to transfer immense wealth to Western citadels, safeguarded by corporations in Europe and America that profited from the exploitation of Zimbabwe’s land and labour.

In essence, this was modern-day slavery masquerading as economic progress for settler regimes in Southern Africa, ultimately serving as a tribute to the British Crown. Chairman Chitepo’s message to the Australian audience, and to the world, was clear: No country can thrive economically unless its citizens actively participate in, and control, its economy.

A nation that lacks sovereignty over its land, resources and industries effectively becomes nothing more than an asset producing goods and services for foreign interests. This was the Zimbabwe that Ian Douglas Smith and his regime sought to create and perpetuate, a nation designed to function as a resource hub for foreign enrichment rather than as a self-sufficient, independent country. This remains the vision that some still dream of today, fuelling continuous attempts to undermine Zimbabwe’s sovereignty. Hence, the liberation war was not just about battling the Rhodesian Front but was also a struggle against international capital, which covertly and overtly directed operations to maintain its hold on Zimbabwe wealth, an exploitative model first established by Cecil John Rhodes and his Pioneer Column.

This international capital, which once operated from the shadows, has now stepped forward more brazenly, taking direct aim not only at Zimbabwe but at all liberation movements across the continent. Any efforts to redress historical injustices and reclaim national resources are met with fierce resistance. Zimbabwe, for instance, has been subjected to illegal economic sanctions for undertaking the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme in 2000, a move that threatened the privileged position of Western corporations and governments that had long dominated land ownership.

History has recorded that the loudest protests over land reclamation did not come from ordinary settlers but from powerful international corporations and Western governments that had benefitted enormously from controlling vast tracts of land at the expense of black Zimbabweans, the rightful owners. South Africa and other nations that pursue similar land reforms will inevitably face similar punitive measures, as the entrenched interests of white monopoly capital fiercely resist any disruption of their historical looting.

The ongoing fight against economic empowerment of the masses is fundamentally driven by international capital. By its very nature, global capital seeks to exploit not just natural resources but also human capital, prioritising profit over equity. It ruthlessly protects its gains while manipulating those who unknowingly endorse its exploitative practices under the guise of economic partnership and development. As Chairman Chitepo boldly articulated in Australia, Zimbabwe was occupied by Rhodes and his forces with the explicit goal of turning it into a commercial enterprise within his vast economic portfolio. This meant the country was always vulnerable to ruthless exploitation by settlers who sought to enjoy privileged, comfortable lives far from their native lands at the expense of indigenous Zimbabweans. This mind-set persists among certain factions that still regard Zimbabwe as a mere economic asset, a perception deeply embedded in the operations of multinational corporations and Western financial networks. Even today, figures like George Soros openly fund efforts aimed at undermining the Zimbabwean Government, supporting illegal regime change agendas that serve the interests of foreign capital rather than the people of Zimbabwe.

Similarly, remnants of the Rhodesian colonial economy through some businesses attempt to maintain their hegemonic grip on the country’s economy by resisting the emergence of black-owned enterprises. When these corporations claim to be closing shop due to ‘failed policies’, what they truly lament is the loss of their monopolistic dominance. The so-called failure they decry is, in reality, the empowerment of indigenous Zimbabweans entering the economic mainstream. This is why the popular narrative about Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, which often focuses on the military battles fought in the bush, must also recognise the economic dimension of the war. The guerrillas were not merely fighting against the Rhodesian military; they were challenging a vast network of international corporations and ex-World War II veterans enlisted to protect white monopoly capital. Chairman Chitepo made this point unequivocally clear in his 1973 speech: “The white people who are in Zimbabwe are very largely of the post-Second World War sort of generation.

It is our determination in the attacks that we have embarked on to remove that whole structure of society based on corruption, privilege and exploitation — backed not only by the Rhodesians themselves but also by huge international capital. I think you must appreciate this. Zimbabwe’s situation — the settlers there — can and truly should be looked upon as the immediate local agents of a huge international capitalistic manoeuvre to control and continue exploiting the resources of Zimbabwe. And in this, they include us. We are just natural resources to be exploited for the benefit of these big corporations.” These corporations were deeply involved in keeping the Smith regime afl oat, funding its war against Zimbabweans while facilitating sanctions-busting operations. A revealing study by Peter Uledi, titled ’Financial Mobilisation for Economic Survival: The Rhodesian Insurance Industry During UDI, 1965-1979’, highlights how international capital propped up the Rhodesian economy despite global sanctions.

“British companies such as BP exploited the lucrative trade developing in Rhodesia as agents of sanctions-busting,” the paper notes. “Elaine Windrich argues that it was the failure of Britain and the United Nations in enforcing sanctions that allowed Rhodesia to survive. This explains why British and American companies topped the list of entities doing business with Rhodesia despite sanctions. Barclays Bank International became a registered broker, while chrome exports generated US$16 million between 1971 and 1980, finding a ready market in the US.” In addition, financial institutions like Old Mutual facilitated illicit financial transactions to sustain the Rhodesian economy. Alois Mlambo further confirms that by 1978, 444 British and 92 American companies were actively conducting business with Rhodesia, despite official sanctions.

For Zimbabwe to overcome the continued threat of international capital, there is an urgent need to develop strong, indigenous conglomerates that align with the ideals of the liberation struggle. These enterprises must not only counter the influence of foreign monopolies but also champion economic policies that prioritise national sovereignty and wealth redistribution. Chairman Chitepo’s address in Australia remains a critical lesson: Economic liberation is as vital as political independence. The fight for Zimbabwe’s sovereignty is far from over, it is a continuous struggle against imperialistic exploitation that requires unwavering vigilance and strategic economic empowerment.