Why Zimbabwe’s foreign policy vacuum disqualifies its UN Security Council ambitions

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

​The recent announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Amon Murwira, regarding Zimbabwe’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2027-2028 term, was delivered with the kind of self-assuredness usually reserved for guaranteed victories.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08 

According to a Newsday report, Murwira bragged that the country has already secured the backing of at least 80 nations outside of Africa.

He spoke of Zimbabwe as a “champion of peace” and a country that represents “tranquility.”

Yet, as one digests this diplomatic posturing, a glaring, uncomfortable question persists: What exactly does Zimbabwe intend to do with a seat on the most powerful decision-making body on the planet when it effectively possesses no foreign policy?

Is the quest for a seat at the famous “horseshoe table” a genuine desire to shape global peace, or is it merely an expensive exercise in prestige, a desperate attempt to look like a global player while remaining a geopolitical ghost?

The fundamental problem lies in the Mnangagwa administration’s favorite diplomatic mantra: “a friend to all and an enemy to none.”

While this phrase might sound pleasant in a press release or a travel brochure, it is, in the realm of high-stakes international relations, a meaningless platitude.

It is not a foreign policy; it is the absence of one.

A foreign policy is a set of principles, a defined stance on global issues, and a framework for action.

It requires a country to know what it stands for and, crucially, what it stands against.

To be “a friend to all” in a world of conflicting interests, brutal aggressions, and systemic violations of international law is to be a friend to no one—least of all to the principles of justice and collective security that the United Nations was built to uphold.

​Consider the recent military intervention by the United States in Venezuela, resulting in the capture and incarceration of President Nicolás Maduro in New York.

This event sent shockwaves through the international community.

The majority of nations quickly took a stand, many condemning the act as a flagrant violation of international law.

Specifically, they cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as the principle of sovereign equality.

While the world debated the legality and morality of this intervention, the administration of President Emmerson Mnangagwa was conspicuously silent.

There was no official statement, no condemnation, no defense of a fellow member of the “Global South,” and no legal analysis.

Why?

Because to speak would be to risk making an “enemy.”

By remaining silent, Harare essentially admitted that its “friend to all” policy is actually a policy of “speak to none.”

This silence is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of strategic invisibility.

During the devastating escalation of the war in Gaza since 2023, the world watched as South Africa took a bold, principled stand at the International Court of Justice.

In contrast, Zimbabwe’s response was a masterclass in tepid ambiguity.

The government issued the most cautious of warnings against the “disproportionate use of force” and “concern” for civilians, using the kind of boilerplate language that says everything and nothing at the same time.

There was no firm stance on the root causes of the conflict, no leadership in the regional or continental response, and certainly no willingness to jeopardize its “re-engagement” efforts with the West by speaking uncomfortable truths.

This brings us to the core of the issue: the mandate of the UN Security Council.

The Council is not a social club where nations sit to bask in the glow of international recognition.

Under the UN Charter, its primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security.

Its roles include investigating any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction; recommending methods of adjusting such disputes; and, most significantly, determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and recommending what action should be taken.

This often involves the imposition of sanctions or even the authorization of the use of force to enforce mandates.

How can a country that is terrified of offending anyone possibly fulfill these duties?

If Zimbabwe were on the Council today, deliberating on the US action in Venezuela or the crisis in the Middle East, what would it do?

Judging by its current track record, it would sit in silence, abstaining from difficult votes and offering no moral or legal direction.

A seat on the Security Council requires a country to be an arbiter of international law.

It requires the courage to hold violators to account, even when those violators are powerful “friends.”

If Harare’s primary goal is to avoid making enemies, it is fundamentally ill-equipped to serve on a body whose very purpose is to confront and restrain those who break global peace.

This paralysis extends to our own continent.

The Mnangagwa administration has consistently looked the other way when neighboring regimes violate the basic tenets of human rights, democracy, and the sanctity of free and fair elections.

There is an unspoken pact of silence within the regional bloc, seemingly rooted in the philosophy that “one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.”

Because the Zimbabwean government is so frequently accused of the same violations it sees elsewhere, it chooses the safety of mutual silence.

But if a country cannot stand up for the democratic rights of its neighbors, how can it be expected to stand up for the security of the world?

Those who are unwilling to hold others to a standard because they fear being held to that same standard have no place at the head of the international table.

To be brutally honest, there is a certain nostalgia for the clarity—however polarizing—of the previous era.

Love him or hate him, one always knew where former President Robert Mugabe stood on global affairs.

He was a man of firm, albeit often confrontational, positions.

He used the global stage to articulate a specific worldview, one rooted in pan-Africanism and a fierce, if sometimes misplaced, anti-imperialism.

Under Mnangagwa, that clarity has vanished, replaced by a vacuum of “re-engagement” that has yielded little more than diplomatic shyness.

Zimbabwe has traded a loud voice for a seat in the back of the room, hoping that by saying nothing, it can please everyone.

The UN Security Council needs members who are willing to lead, not just follow or hide.

It needs nations that are prepared to interpret international law with integrity and apply it without fear or favor.

A country that views foreign policy as a game of avoiding conflict rather than a mission of upholding principles is a passenger on the global stage, not a pilot.

As the 2026 elections approach, the General Assembly members should ask themselves: Does the world need another silent vote on the Security Council?

Does it need a country that views “peace” as merely the absence of an official opinion?

Zimbabwe’s bid for the UNSC seat is a test of what we think the United Nations is for.

If it is merely a theater for national prestige, then perhaps Zimbabwe’s “friend to all” approach is sufficient.

But if the Security Council is to remain the ultimate guardian of global order, it requires members with the backbone to speak.

“A friend to all and an enemy to none” is a recipe for irrelevance.

Until Harare can define what it stands for, it has no business asking for the power to decide what the world stands for.

A seat at the horseshoe table is a responsibility, not a trophy; it is time Zimbabwe realized that you cannot lead the world from a position of self-imposed silence.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/