U.S. relations with Zimbabwe, a mineral-rich southern African country, remain strained. Tensions in bilateral relations emerged in the late 1990s, when increasing indications of human rights violations, undemocratic governance, and economic decline, accompanied by radical government economic policies and land seizures, spurred concern among Members of Congress and other U.S. policymakers. Bilateral relations since that time have been—and remain—dominated by U.S. policy, diplomatic, and targeted assistance efforts intended to prevent and counter such outcomes, mitigate their effects, and push for policy and governance reforms in Zimbabwe, as well as alleviate socioeconomic hardships among the country's people. Legislation enacted by Congress is a key component of these policy efforts. Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980 under a negotiated political settlement that ended white minority rule, following a long armed struggle. Its politics have since been dominated by the Zimbabwe National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) political party, which has its origins in the struggle for majority rule, and President Robert Mugabe ( moo-G AH -beh ), Zimbabwe's sole post-independence president. Opposition parties have pushed for governance reforms and greater pluralism, notably during a period of often uneasy power sharing between ZANU-PF and the opposition under a Government of National Unity (GNU) between 2009 and 2013. The GNU had been formed under a regionally mediated accord intended to overcome a political impasse between ZANU-PF and the opposition following violent, procedurally disputed elections in 2008. Elections were last held in July 2013, but their legitimacy was disputed by the opposition and criticized by the Obama Administration, among others. The elections gave ZANU-PF a strong majority in parliament, extended Mugabe's presidential tenure, and ended power-sharing under the GNU. Since then, economic conditions have steadily deteriorated. Public dissatisfaction with the economy and with the Mugabe administration and its intolerance of opposition activity have recently sparked a growing number of large public demonstrations and repressive responses by the government. Protest organizers have included political parties, aggrieved workers, and new citizen-led movements, notably a social media-organized movement known as #ThisFlag. Such demonstrations have added to ongoing political turmoil and maneuvering by parties over governance and economic policy, prospects in the upcoming 2018 elections, and rivalry over the prospective succession of Mugabe, who turned 92 years old in early 2016. The succession question has led to internal ZANU-PF factionalization, notably including an emergent split between Mugabe and veterans of the pre-independence armed struggle, who have long been one of ZANU-PF's most vocal core constituencies. The government has responded to growing domestic criticism and protests by seeking to restrict public gatherings and harshly lashing out at its critics, both in public statements and through law enforcement actions. Such patterns of conduct—and a host of more serious reported human rights abuses—have long concerned domestic and international human rights advocacy groups and Western policymakers. For over two decades, successive U.S. administrations have sought to counter abusive and undemocratic actions by the ZANU-PF government by imposing targeted economic and travel sanctions on individuals and firms identified as having committed or abetted abuses. The targeted sanctions regime is authorized under a series of executive orders. Executive branch officials have periodically stated a willingness to consider changes to the U.S. sanctions regime in response to demonstrable improvements in governance, but to date they have deemed progress to have been insufficient to warrant major changes in U.S. policy. For many years, U.S. sanctions were complemented by similarly extensive sanctions by other Western governments. Surrounding the 2013 elections, however, most of these other foreign actors, most notably the European Union, removed or relaxed their sanctions regimes, in contrast to the United States. Sanctions were originally called for by Congress in a "sense of Congress" provision of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZDERA, P.L. 107-99 ). Expressing congressional concern over negative governance, human rights, and rule of law trends in Zimbabwe, ZDERA also prohibits U.S. support for international financial institution (IFI) loans or grants to Zimbabwe's central government, unless and until the Zimbabwean government fulfills a range of governance reform conditions. In the years since ZDERA's passage, Congress has reiterated the ban on U.S. support for IFI credit assistance to Zimbabwe in annual appropriations legislation. Such legislation has also restricted bilateral aid for Zimbabwe, with exceptions for aid programs designed to foster the kinds of humanitarian, education, health, poverty reduction, human rights, and good governance outcomes sought by U.S. policymakers. Zimbabwe is also ineligible for IFI loans under U.S. laws other than ZDERA due to its failure to make payments on its debt to these institutions. Recently, the possibility that Zimbabwe might again become eligible for IFI loans has emerged as an issue for policymakers. In October 2015, the Zimbabwean government issued a plan to repay its IFI arrears as a prerequisite to applying for new IFI credit (see " Zimbabwe's Arrears Clearance Effort "). If it does so, Members of Congress may reexamine the conditions imposed by ZDERA and other legislation, and may seek to influence whether, and under what circumstances, the Mugabe government might be able to receive financial support. Such conditions may be likely to include concrete, demonstrable efforts to pursue market-led economic growth, improved economic management and fiscal transparency, more transparent and accountable governance, and free and fair elections. The question of who may succeed President Mugabe arguably presents the most immediate and pressing challenge for Zimbabwe's political system, and for foreign governments engaged with the country. The stakes are high. Succession outcomes are likely to shape future developments in all major policy arenas, and the succession process could generate political and economic instability, possibly violent, in the wider southern Africa region. Succession is subject to the interplay of diverse, primarily domestic factors, however, making it an unpredictable and fluid process, and one not readily influenced by U.S. or other foreign policy interventions. Enduring support and admiration for Mugabe in southern African political circles—including within South Africa—may also limit the impact of U.S. actions. Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, after a lengthy armed struggle by black Zimbabweans for universal suffrage and against white minority rule. It achieved independence under the Lancaster House Agreement, an accord negotiated between the British government, the armed black independence Patriotic Front movement, and the so-called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government. The Patriotic Front was an alliance between the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), led by Mugabe, and the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), another liberation movement led by the late Joshua Nkomo. The Lancaster House accord provided for elections just prior to independence, in which ZANU won a majority. ZAPU and a party that essentially represented the former white-dominated government won almost all of the remaining seats. After independence, ZANU suppressed alleged anti-government activity by members of ZAPU, its armed wing, and elements of its ethnic Ndebele political base, including through a series of mass detentions and killings led by the Fifth Brigade of the ZANU-dominated army, known as Operation Gukurahundi. Following these actions, in 1987 ZAPU and ZANU signed a unity accord, under which ZAPU was merged into ZANU, which was renamed ZANU-PF. The armed struggle and the enduring effects of post-independence land allocations—which continued to favor whites until the commencement of large-scale land seizures in the 2000s (see " Natural Resource Nationalization ")—have profoundly shaped post-independence politics and ZANU-PF's often radical policies. This history has also led to frequent anti-Western and anti-imperialist rhetoric by ZANU-PF which, along with its general intolerance of and periodic violent action against its political opponents, has long caused friction with donor governments. Zimbabwe has held a series of highly contested elections since 2000, when ZANU-PF nearly lost its parliamentary majority to the then-newly formed opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The vote took place after Zimbabweans rejected a set of ZANU-PF-supported constitutional amendments in a public referendum. Despite this outcome, later in the same year ZANU-PF used its slim majority in parliament to amend the constitution to allow for the compulsory acquisition of land "unjustifiably dispossessed" by the United Kingdom (UK)—that is, provided to white settlers during British colonial rule—and to hold the UK liable for any compensation. The government then supported a campaign of often violent seizures of large, mostly white-owned commercial farms, without compensation, for redistribution to black farmers. The policy was later regulated under a program known as the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP). Such seizures, along with alleged election irregularities, human rights abuses, and various violations of the rule of law, spurred Congress to pass ZDERA in 2001. In succeeding years, a decline in agricultural production linked to land seizures, a variety of state-centric economic policies, and persistent political turmoil led to a severe, multi-year economic contraction. In elections in 2008, amid reports of widespread irregularities, ZANU-PF lost its parliamentary majority and Mugabe received fewer votes than his main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai ( CHAHN -geh-rai ), the presidential candidate of the MDC-Tsvangirai (MDC-T, the main opposition party, so-named to distinguish it from a smaller breakaway faction).