During the first week of December, the U.S. President convened the heads of state of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to sign a peace agreement. His pledge was an end to decades of conflict in the volatile eastern DRC, presenting it as an opportunity for businesses in all three nations “to make a lot of money”.
Shortly after, however, a completely opposite method for violence emerged. The administration announced that U.S. forces had conducted Christmas Day airstrikes in north-west Nigeria, hitting sites connected to the Islamic State (IS). In a social media post, the President warned, I had cautioned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was.”
A Defining Change of Direction
These divergent actions encapsulates the core feature of the U.S. engagement with sub-Saharan Africa in this administration: a moving away from advocating for democracy and human rights in favor of a declared focus on trade and stopping hostilities—despite the fact that this squares with the emerging air campaign in Nigeria is an open question.
“We have moved past viewing Africa as a continent in need of handouts, but as a capable commercial partner. ‘Trade, not aid,’ a mantra commonly used for years, is now truly our policy for Africa,” said a senior U.S. diplomat on a visit to Côte d’Ivoire in March.
An administration representative stated this, saying the President “has treated Africa not as a charity case, but as a powerhouse partner. Under his leadership, American capital, technology, and diplomacy are helping African nations achieve stability, build real energy independence, and turn their natural wealth into jobs and opportunity.”
Consequences and Inconsistencies
This change is major, but analysts warn it is premature to gauge its impact. The approach is influenced by the President’s direct manner, which has included conflicts with long-standing U.S. partners and negative rhetoric towards Africans.
“The core tenet is, if it’s in the long-term or short-term interest of the United States, as I see it, then I’m going to do it,” said a scholar for Africa studies at a major foreign policy council.
Key decisions have included:
- Shutting down the primary U.S. international development agency, USAID. Research forecasts this could lead to millions of preventable deaths globally by 2030, with a large number in Africa.
- Imposing visa restrictions on citizens from over twenty African countries and suspending most refugee admissions.
- Starting a global tariff campaign that has hurt African businesses dependent on U.S. markets, such as textile manufacturers in Lesotho.
- Letting a longstanding U.S.-Africa trade preference act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), to expire without renewal.
Geopolitical Disinterest and Friction
Unlike his immediate predecessors, the President did not travel to sub-Saharan Africa during his first term. His best-known comment on African affairs was referring to nations on the continent with a crude epithet, which he later acknowledged using.
“The continent ranks dead bottom in his list of priorities, not just for the President, but for the administration in general,” stated the Africa program director for an international conflict resolution organization. He pointed to the recent U.S. National Security Strategy, which allocated only three paragraphs to Africa in a 29-page document.
A major feud has broken out with South Africa, reportedly shaped by claims of persecution against the white minority. This led to a U.S. boycott of the G20 summit in Johannesburg and threats to block South African delegates from the next meeting.
“The idea of a ‘white genocide’ happening in South Africa aligns beautifully now in U.S. political culture and the idea that diversity is not welcome, it’s a threat,” commented a veteran South African journalist based in Washington.
Transactional Relations and Targeted Involvement
An analogous standoff flared with Nigeria in November, when the President threatened to cut aid and send in the military “guns-a-blazing” over the killing of Christians. This ran up against Nigeria’s complex reality as a nation evenly divided between Christians and Muslims and plagued by security crises affecting both groups.
Some Nigerian analysts noted that the forceful rhetoric may have pushed the government into increased efforts on security. After the Christmas airstrikes, Nigerian officials said they had approved the U.S. intervention and might collaborate on further actions.
The President has been open his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize. His administration has brokered in the Congo conflict and sent an envoy to try to negotiate a resolution in Sudan’s civil war, so far without success. While the Congo deal appeared to have been broken quickly, it “helps to at least introduce a degree of diplomacy and a channel outside the battlefield,” said one conflict expert.
A Resemblance to Other Powers
Experts characterize the new U.S. approach as reminiscent of that of other major powers like Russia and China, who have expanded their involvement in Africa in recent decades based on strategic interests.
“It represents a belated recognition of African agency, and to that extent, it represents, at least at the level of symbols, taking Africa very seriously,” said one foreign policy analyst.
In practice, the current policy likely means that “a nation that doesn’t have anything to put on the table … is not on his radar.”
“The engagement that we are talking about isn't about spreading the milk of human kindness, as it were, it is about a business-oriented posture towards Africa,” she added.
