International Politics of the US 2024 Presidential Elections:Quo Vadis Shithole Africa?

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Every US presidential election attracts international attention for various reasons. It is mostly believed that the United States is the strongest country in the world, and by implication, its president is necessarily seen as the most powerful leader of the world. Secondly, the current global system is western world-dominated against which the proponents of the BRICS are pointedly militating. The Western world is led by the United States. As such, who becomes the leader of the United States cannot but also be of a major interest to European leaders. 

And true enough, former President Donald Trump was re-elected the 47th President of the United States on Tuesday, 5 November 2024. The election was in spite of Donald Trump’s record of being a criminal felon and his indisputable racist personality of looking down on others, especially the people of Africa. What is more internationally disturbing is how a noble society like that of the Americans can afford the luxury of giving preference to criminality over dignity of purpose and other moral values.

Many Africans in the Diaspora, particularly in the United States, often argue that the more than 80 million people who voted for Donald Trump cannot but have vested interests justifying their choice. We cannot agree more with their democratic choice. However, why should an American society, purportedly the first society in the world, be preaching the gospel of a holier-than-thou lifestyle to non-Americans when it is condoning criminality? American law apparently condones criminality in political governance. Many countries similarly promote criminality through constitutional provisions on immunity and privileges for functions performed in official capacities. If the US presidential system is promoting criminality, why should the same system be accepted and promoted in Nigeria? The international politics of the election is another kettle of fish entirely.  

Politics of the Election 

At the US domestic level, there is no disputing the fact there are proponents and opponents of Donald Trumpism. The opposition is critical to the extent that some of them wanted and still want to take life out of Donald Trump. This is most unfortunate as politics should not be carried to the extent of killing one another for whatever reason. There were two attempts to kill him during his presidential campaigns. The supporters of Trump also exist in greater numbers. Kamala Harris scored about 70,357,568 votes (47.9%) and 226 electoral votes cast as against Trump’s 74,264,589 votes (50.5%) and 301 electoral votes cast. 

The implication of this is that most American voters condone criminality and therefore care much less about nobility and integrity which the US followers expect in international relations. Americans most unfortunately send the signal to the world that they should no longer be seen as a country of moral values and should not be counted upon to provide leadership in the area of moral education. Perhaps most disturbingly, the best the American people can present to the world to lead the world is a criminal felon. This is most unfortunate because it not only lends credence to the rationales given by the sponsors of the BRICS organisation, but also why the United States will be great again in followership and no more in leadership. China is already bracing up to lead the world. 

  At the international level, the influence of the United States is declining globally and the election of Donald Trump can only further the decline. First, the whole world tends towards the promotion of multilateralism while Donald Trump favours bilateralism. This is a conflict of interest. Secondly, the world believes there is the question of climate change that has the potential to seriously undermine global security. Donald Trump does not believe in it. In fact, the United States of Donald Trump withdrew from the multinational agreements meant to mitigate the effects of climate change. With the withdrawal, the United States became the first country to withdraw and also the first to recognise its mistake by returning to the agreement when President Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump as US president in 2020. Thirdly, Donald Trump is on record to have unilaterally pulled out the United States from the Iranian 2015 Nuclear Deal with the world powers. In the process, he engineered the killing of Qassem Soleimani Khamenei, an acknowledged anti-terrorism fighter, who not only revealed ‘the ugly face of western interferences,’ but also whose killing prompted the consideration that ‘the US is an impediment to the stability of nations.’ The killing made Soleimani Khamenei a ‘Living Martyr’ because he is seen as a patriot and a man of justice.  

The 16th BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, lends credence to this observation because of the theme of the summit: ‘Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security.’ Explained differently, the theme implies an existing unfair global development that needs to be nipped in the bud. The BRICS wants to strengthen multilateralism which is not consistent with the agenda of Donald Trump. The conduct and management of the so-called global development is largely and currently dominated by the United States, and more so as from January 20 by President Trump. The future scenario looks like a more powerful world versus a would-be weakened America of Donald Trump.

For example, following the election of Donald Trump, Franco-German Defence Ministers are talking about the need for a reinforced strategic autonomy and strengthened collective approach to responding to the heightening of security threats to the European Union. German Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius, and his French counterpart, Sébastien Lecornu, quickly saw the need to discuss the issue, particularly with the United Kingdom, and with Italy and Poland this week. In the words of the German Minister, ‘we have achieved a lot in Europe, but need to do more for the coming years. Franco-German unity is a major part of this. Europe’s freedom and security depend on whether we are able and willing to defend them credibly’ (vide @GermanyNATO; @Minister#Pistorius).  

Without doubt, France and Germany have been committedly trying to unite Europe in the areas of economic development, regional security, and foreign policy. The establishment of the Iron and Steel Communities that dove-tailed to the signing of the 1957 Rome Treaty establishing the EEC of Six lends much credence to this point. In fact, it should be recalled that, as far back as 1963, France and Germany established a quarterly Franco-German Summit to address their bilateral issues with the aim of preventing disputes and strengthening bilateral ties, as well as ensuring that war between them can only be a matter of dream. The two countries, through their Foreign Ministers, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, first mooted the idea of the Communities on 9 May 1950 that Franco-German production of coal and steel be put under a common High Authority within the context of a joint organisation which would be open to accession by other interested countries in Europe.

However, this partnership was and still is subsumed under the NATO security umbrella. France, in particular, is on record to have been agitating for an independent European security platform that would be at par with the United States or with the NATO. This position got a fillip with President Trump’s call on all the US allies to increase their security and defence budgets so as to reduce the financial burden being carried by the United States. Now, with the renewed election of Donald Trump, it is expected that President Trump cannot but come back to compelling everyone to contribute more to the defence of Europe. It is against this background that the new suggestion of a strengthened strategic autonomy by France and Germany should be understood. This means that Franco-German ties with President Trump have the potential to be frosty in the foreseeable future. 

As regards Russia, its foreign policy attitude towards the election of Donald Trump can be explained at two complementary levels. First, there are some insinuations according to which Russia prefers Donald Trump to any candidate of the Democratic Party. This is informed by the consideration of Trump as a confused man with archaic ideas of white supremacy, believing in talking tough as a solution, and Making America Great Again with the doctrine of ‘America First’ and idea of the 1823 ‘isolationism.’ The world cannot be going in the direction of multilateralism while Trump is treading along the parallel lines of bilateralism and isolationism.

The other level of analysis is the strong belief of Russians in Trump’s pronouncements. Donald Trump is on record to have said that he would restore and deepen ties with Russia if elected. It was on this consideration that President Vladimir Putin noted at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi that former President Trump behaved ‘in a very correct way’ and that Trump’s ‘desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis…deserves attention at least.’ This statement should be particularly seen and understood. Donald Trump said he would help to negotiate an end to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict within 24 hours. 

Many observers, including the Russians are waiting for the type of magic to be performed to bring about peace in 24 hours. Donald Trump has already suggested the cession of territory by Ukraine to Russia in order to have a peace deal. Ukraine is vehemently opposed to the idea and President Joe Biden has not talked about that. However, since Trump believes in the possibility and he is reputed to be a man of his words, it can be expected that his approach cannot but be to encourage President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to accept the idea or to stop aid-giving to Ukraine and encouraging the European allies to do the same. The challenge in this case is determining the extent to which the Franco-German leadership of the European Union would be prepared, without compulsion, to accept the suggestion. The extent of the EU also accepting Donald Trump’s leadership is a matter of debate because the EU is striving to be an alternative centre of power in international politics.

Quo Vadis Shithole Africa?

Grosso modo, in which way will Africa, in general, and Nigeria, in particular, be affected by Trump’s foreign policy attitude? In the eyes of Donald Trump, Africa is a continent of shitholes. It is a continent of people coming to the United States to kill domestic animals and eat. Does he hate Africa with this perception? Probably yes and probably no. Fela Anikulapo-Kuti told us in one of his songs that Africans did not know about shit carrying until the colonialists imported the shit culture to their colonies. Shit carrying was never the culture of African people. Africans had already developed themselves to the level of having latrines. 

In other words, Africans were not in any way indecent to be carrying shits. If Donald Trump is now talking about Africa of shitholes, he only needs to be reminded that those claiming to be developed today were after all at the origin of the shitholes. This is therefore not about friendliness or hatred of Donald Trump but about his poor knowledge of historical facts. We can pardon him by admitting that he made the speech as a result of ignorance which is not befitting of a president of a powerful country and leader of the world.

However, can this ignorance be brought to bear on US policy towards Africa when Donald Trump resumes duty on January 20, 2025? Insecurity is deepening in Africa, especially in Nigeria where a new terrorist group, the Lukarawas, with affiliation with the terrorist groups in the Sahel, was identified last week Friday to have entered Nigeria. In this regard, will the election of Donald Trump be helpful in containing the rise in the use of terror in Nigeria? To what extent can President Trump be prepared to assist Africa that is still much preoccupied with oil and gas, and still much ill-prepared to engage in the technology of digitalisation and digitisation? Let us address some international questions involved.

First, at the level of Nigeria, the inflow of the new terrorists to Nigeria raises many questions? The terrorists were reported to have been given a warm embrace by the people in Northwest Nigeria? Are the North-western Nigerians aiding and abetting armed banditry and terrorism? If they do, why should they be engaging in self-destruction? Can the so-called northern governors, reportedly against PBAT, opt to embrace terrorism in protest against PBAT’s policy reforms? Some Nigerians have been reportedly arrested for investigation. Is this how to keep Nigeria united as a task? Why should it be an offence for people seeking separation if it is true that some Nigerians are encouraging terrorism in Nigeria? Since the time former President Goodluck Jonathan made it clear to Nigerians that there were boko haramists in his government, no one has bothered to inform Nigerians what has happened to them. No one knows whether they are still in government. This is an area that ought to be the first preoccupation of the Chief of Army or Chief of Defence Staff. 

In the same vein, are the countries of the Alliance of the States of the Sahel (ASS) exporting captured terrorists to Nigeria in protest against Nigeria’s role in the sanctioning of the ASS? For long now, there have been speculations that some big powers were aiding and abetting terrorism in Africa. This unconfirmed observation raises the manner of how the predicted return of France to the countries that declared France unwanted will be. Can France be sending terrorists to its former colonies even if their former privileged relationships have now been fraught with political lulls? Can France be aiding the use of terrorists to fight Russia in Francophone Africa? In fact, why would France want to send terrorists to Nigeria when Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) is not only a close ally of President Emmanuel Macron, but is also the primus inter pares in the political war against the beneficiaries of unconstitutional changes of government in West Africa? 

At the African level, what really is Africa’s policy attitude towards the United States, and particularly towards its foreign policy on Africa? For example, what is Africa’s policy attitude towards US foreign policy of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict? The United States is supporting Israel’s commission of genocidal crimes under the pretext of legitimate self-defence. In fact, South Africa, in its capacity as a sovereign State, has dragged Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Has the African Union, as an embodiment of the whole of Africa, any well-known international position on this matter? There is no disputing the fact that Christian leaders of Africa have tended to support Israel in the wrong belief that they are supporting Jesus Christ. So are African Muslim leaders supporting the Muslim Palestinian Arabs because of Islam. Can there really be any integration of minds with this type of divisive issue involving genocidal crimes?

Whatever is the perception of Africa about the United States, either as a new imperialist, policeman of the world, or otherwise, there is the truth in the saying of Mme Simone de Beauvoir, a French philosopher, who said that ‘the oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed.’ Explained differently, no matter how bad or good, acceptable or unacceptable one sees Donald Trump view of Africa, no matter his hostility towards illegal immigrants, no matter his arrogant view of white Americans, and no matter the extent to which he wants to Make America Great Again, he has accomplices in all cases.

Can Donald Trump make America great by ignoring other main and regional powers like Nigeria? Can Donald Trump seek to establish the AFRICOM in Nigeria by looking down on Nigerians? What is the expected position of President Trump on the issue of AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act)? Will President Trump cut down US aid to Africa? Many African leaders are currently under sanctions for various allegations of authoritarianism. Will Trump review the sanctions? Will he allow those who had been prevented from entering the United States to now enter? And perhaps more interestingly, will there really be any fundamental change in the US policy towards Africa and the world either under Donald Trump or Kamala Harris or any other president? We doubt much on main questions of national interest. They cannot be easily changed except in tactical approaches. The ultimate strategic objectives remain essentially the same: advancement of liberal democracy, free enterprise, human rights, etc.

The Zimbabwe stands ready to work with Donald Trump, President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe has said. Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) wants a ‘reciprocal economic and development partnerships between Africa and the United States.’ The South African leader, Cyril Ramaphosa, looks ‘forward to continuing the close and mutually beneficial partnership between our two nations across all domains of our cooperation.’ Can this be possible? We all know that South Africa currently appears to be closer to Russia than to the United States. Consequently, South Africa’s congratulatory message to Donald Trump should be understood in the context of traditional protocol. 

All said and done, there is not much to learn from the 2024 US presidential election simply because the non-rigging of election, the pre-election day voting, the postal voting, the life-made-easy in voting, as well as the promptness in the release of election results, etc., were all overshowed by the American disregard of the criminal factors informing the choice of their leaders. If the US electoral law can condone the eligibility of Donald Trump who is on record to have been convicted, therefore, an ex-convict, to be the US president, it means an ex-convict is US president. This should not be accepted in Nigeria. An ex-convict cannot be rightly qualified to be the world leader. The election of Donald Trump for the second time necessarily strengthens the position of China and Russia in their quest for global leadership. It clearly lends much credence to the BRICS which has complained about the double standard of the Western world in the conduct and management of global affairs. African leaders, especially Nigeria’s PBAT, were quick in congratulating Donald Trump. This means nothing for a President that has little or no respect for Africa. Africa’s foreign policy actors to have a policy of making haste slowly in diplomatic felicitations. What does Trump think about African leaders?