The New US Strategy For Africa

Earlier, this month, the government of the United States of America rolled out a new strategy for Africa in pursuit of its foreign policy objectives in the continent. The strategy contained a number of easily identifiable objectives namely: to foster open societies; deliver democratic and security dividends; advance pandemic recovery and economic opportunities; and support conservation, climate adaption and a just energy transition.

The Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, spoke of some of these objectives in a speech he delivered in South Africa recently. For countries in sub- Saharan Africa, there is much to be excited about in the new approach. The continent is probably the most devastated by the effects of a changing climate, which is fueling conflicts across regions.

It goes without saying that many African governments barely know how else to govern except to clamp down on free speech and universal rights. And nothing could be more beneficial than having oil producing nations of the continent making the energy transition at their own pace.

In the opinion of this newspaper, it is particularly promising that the President Joe Biden administration wants to listen to the voices of the African people more and treat them as equal partners. In a sense, this is in response to the lukewarm reception the United States and its European allies are getting from a number of African leaders in the effort to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as exemplified during the voting at the United Nations’ Human Right Commission (UNHRC) resolution that suspended that country.

Clearly, the American government sees the number of African abstentions in the UN votes as a win for Russia’s Vladmir Putin.
There is much in the new strategy of the US that was developed not to meet the developmental and security needs of sub-Saharan Africa, but rather to counter the growing influence of Russia and China on the continent. The strategy document is replete with language that seeks to curb undue foreign influence in Africa, undercut negative influences and even goes as afar as labeling and maligning foreign actors. In the US view, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), “sees the region as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and weaken US relations with African peoples and governments.”

It is not difficult to identify some of the exploitative actions of Chinese entities in some countries. Yet, over the last 20 years, China according to independent estimates, has committed $153 billion in 1,141 loans to African countries and there are tangible results in ports, roads, bridges and thousands of kilometers of rail track.
In contrast, US priority in Africa which is to promote democracy have continuously suffered setbacks, and worse, the response of the US and its allies have been inconsistent. The US and its allies in Europe also don’t appear to be on the same page when it comes to aiding dictators and the abuse of human rights on the continent. A case in point would be the aid provided by the EU to Libyan militias to detain, torture and even enslave Africans, all in the name of stopping the flow of migrants to Europe.
Russia, the strategy document explains, “views the (African) region as a permissive environment for parastatals and private military companies, often fomenting instability for strategic and financial benefit.” Unlike China, it is hard to claim any real benefit from Africa’s engagement with Russia. If anything at all, the activities of Russian mercenaries in propping up dictators and human rights abuses are been documented in Libya, Mali and other countries.
The US government, in this strategy under review, claims that it will expose some of these activities by both Russia and China, while vowing that its commitment to a stronger partnership with Africa is not about trying to outdo anyone else. The fear of this newspaper is that that might just be the case. Nothing could endanger the lives, wellbeing and development needs of African more than a political and security rivalry between the world’s super powers trying to outdo one another and turning the African continent into a playground.
That said, it is our considered opinion that the US could not have a one- size- fits- all approach for the challenges faced by African countries, especially in its push to “review and reinvest in tools for engaging with African militaries, especially programs that support necessary institutional capacity-building, combat corruption, and advance security sector reforms.”

The US has already poured billions of dollars in equipment, training and intelligence to aid the Nigerian armed forces. The focus on African militaries has proven to be counterproductive in countries like Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso. There are instances where western aid has proven to be the source of corruption and discontent within the armed forces. In our view, the support Nigeria needs is in the direction of significantly expanding the numbers and capabilities of the Nigerian Police and possibly lay the groundwork for the creation of state police in the years to come.