When Starlink launched in Zimbabwe during the last half of 2024, I was one of those who were skeptical. As a creature of habit, I am not a band wagoner. Neither do I easily get swayed by new things, particularly if the old items are still delivering value. As a non-technology but curious person, I had an unsettling and sinking feeling whether we truly comprehend what adopting Starlink signifies for Zimbabwe and its sovereignty?
It was not until last week, when Dr Malusi Mncube, a seasoned academic, researcher, development practitioner and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg, wrote a thought-provoking paper, against the adoption of Starlink in South Africa (SA), that got me thinking that perhaps, it was premature for Zimbabwe to adopt this technology, without doing further in depth research. Mncube’s argument was, whilst the technology is often heralded as a revolutionary tool for bridging digital divides, its implications extend far beyond mere connectivity.
Zimbabwe has already granted Starlink access to its airspace, opening the door to a new form of digital engagement. Yet, what might seem like progress could very well be the beginning of a silent invasion of sovereignty. In the digital age, the true challenge lies not in physical border security, but in the invisible domain of satellite communications, where sovereignty can quietly erode through digital dependency.
The proponents of Elon Musk’s satellite constellation present it as a panacea for rural disconnection, a boon for farmers, health clinics and students in remote areas. This narrative is compelling: a high-speed, reliable internet service capable of reaching the most isolated corners of Zimbabwe and Africa at large. However, two opposing views can be true at the same time. This portrayal often glosses over the complex geopolitical realities underpinning such technology. Starlink is not merely a neutral service, it is a sophisticated instrument with embedded strategic interests.
Below are nine insights, to support this school of thought.
Space dominance: Satellite Technology and Space Power by the US military is increasing
Insight: The US has significantly expanded its focus on space as a strategic domain, establishing the US Space Force in 2019 as an independent military branch. This reflects an understanding that space-based assets, such as satellites, are critical for modern military operations, including but not restricted to navigation, reconnaissance, communication and missile warning systems.
Space force initiatives: The US Space Force manages a fleet of military satellites that provide global positioning system (GPS) data, secure communications, missile warning and surveillance capabilities.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
Commercial military partnerships: Companies such as SpaceX, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, develop and operate military satellites under contracts with the Department of Defence (DoD). For example, Boeing’s Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellites provide high capacity communications to the US and allied forces worldwide.
Strategic advantage: The US has invested in anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, such as testing missile systems, capable of disabling or destroying adversary satellites, highlighting the importance of space dominance.
Implication for Africa: This growing focus indicates that space assets are integral to US military dominance, which can extend to any region where these satellites operate, including Africa, either directly or through partnerships with private companies such as SpaceX.
Satellite internet services such as Starlink are increasingly integrated into military and intelligence operations.
Insight: Starlink and similar satellite constellations are not just commercial services. They are increasingly used in military contexts for secure, high-speed communications. Their deployment enhances battlefield connectivity, reconnaissance and operational coordination, especially in contested or remote areas.
Specific examples: Ukraine conflict
Starlink’s role: The US government, through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), facilitated Starlink’s deployment in Ukraine to maintain internet connectivity during the conflict.
Military use: Ukrainian armed forces used Starlink for drone coordination, real time battlefield data and command communications. Elon Musk publicly stated that he limited the bandwidth of Starlink in certain regions to prevent its use for offensive military operations, illustrating its strategic importance.
US military in remote areas: The US has tested and integrated satellite internet services for remote deployments in the Arctic, Africa and the Middle East for rapid troop mobility, intelligence gathering and surveillance operations.
Implication for Africa: As satellite internet becomes embedded in military operations, countries hosting these services may see increased military influence or intelligence gathering capabilities, often without transparency or oversight.
Foreign-controlled infrastructure and vulnerability of digital sovereignty
Insight
When critical digital infrastructure, such as satellite networks, is owned and operated by foreign entities, countries risk losing control over their data, communications and security. This dependency can be exploited in times of crisis or conflict.
Specific examples
Ethiopia and Huawei: Ethiopia partnered with Huawei for its 4G and 5G network infrastructure. Critics expressed concerns that such reliance could give China significant influence over Ethiopia’s telecommunications and data security, raising sovereignty issues.
Rwanda and internet infrastructure: Rwanda has partnered with foreign companies for internet expansion, including fibre optic links from international providers, raising fears over data sovereignty and foreign control over critical infrastructure.
Implication for Zimbabwe: If Starlink’s infrastructure becomes integral to Zimbabwe’s digital ecosystem, the country could become vulnerable to foreign influence over its data flows, security policies and communications.
Global disparities in how the US approaches foreign technology and security concerns
Insight
The US applies different standards depending on the geopolitical context. Chinese technology, such as Huawei, faces heavy restrictions due to perceived security threats, while US technology often enters other countries with limited oversight.
Specific examples
Huawei Ban: The US government banned Huawei from participating in critical 5G infrastructure projects, citing concerns that Chinese state influence could allow espionage or sabotage. Countries such as Australia, the UK, and the US itself have taken measures to restrict Huawei’s involvement, citing national security fears.
TikTok restrictions: Several countries, notably the US (ban eventually lifted with restrictions) and India, have enacted bans or restrictions on TikTok, citing data privacy and security concerns related to Chinese ownership.
US tech in Africa: In contrast, US companies such as Google, Facebook (Meta) and Starlink are welcomed in Africa as development tools, often with minimal regulation or scrutiny. For example, Facebook’s Free Basics programme aimed to provide free internet access in Africa, although it faced criticism for potentially entrenching dependency on external platforms.
Implication for Africa: The differential approach underscores geopolitical priorities, specifically, security concerns about Chinese tech versus strategic engagement with US firms, often at the expense of sovereignty and local oversight in African nations.
Historical lessons
Infrastructure is a tool of power and extraction.
Insight
Historically, infrastructure projects initiated by colonial and imperial powers served to facilitate resource extraction, control and domination, rather than local development.
This strategy of using infrastructure as a tool of power and extraction is still going on. In the past, railroads and telegraph lines constructed during colonial rule exemplified this pattern.
Specific examples
Colonial railroads in Africa: The British and French built railways primarily to export raw materials such as minerals, cash crops and timber, rather than to serve local populations’ needs. These railways often bypassed local communities or were designed to facilitate colonial extraction expediently.
Telegraph and communication lines: Telegraph networks laid during colonial times were used to coordinate resource extraction and military control, not to empower local communities.
Modern parallel: Satellite networks including Starlink could serve similar purposes, like, creating dependencies that benefit external powers economically and strategically, rather than fostering local sovereignty or development.
- Ndoro-Mkombachoto is a former academic and banker. She has consulted widely in strategy, entrepreneurship and private sector development for organisations that include Seed Co Africa, Hwange Colliery, RBZ/CGC, Standard Bank of South Africa, Home Loans, IFC/World Bank, UNDP, USAid, Danida, Cida, Kellogg Foundation, among others, as a writer, property investor, developer and manager. — @HeartfeltwithGloria/ +263 772 236 341.
