PLACING AFRICA IN AN AMERICA-FIRST WORLD
African leaders will be forced to tend to their affairs and prioritise their development, reckons BABATUNDE OYATERU
With the recently concluded American elections, it is the season of think-pieces and political fortune-telling. Every four years, the world stops to ponder what the international order will look like or how a new order might take shape. Many commentators are like end-time preachers, reminding us of impending doom with a new occupant of the White House. International relations, though, rarely unfold like that; change is often incremental and painstaking, and away from the bright lights of fora like COP, the UNGA, the G20 and BRICs, most developments happen without fanfare and often go unnoticed.
Additionally, the international system is no longer unipolar, and the West is no longer the centre of the known universe. However, America is still a world leader, and its policies and actions often have global implications. Many of President-elect Trump’s foreign policy priorities have already been set for him. He returns to office at a time when conflict is rife in many corners of the world, from the Middle East to Europe. The incoming administration will be tasked with managing those conflicts or, at the very least, ensuring there is no escalation. There are other priorities which formed the cornerstone of his presidential campaign and are well known, such as securing American borders to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and narcotics. He is also keen to restore the balance of trade and entrench a mercantilist trade and foreign policy. There has been minimal mention of Africa in all the political gaming and forecasting. President-elect Trump did not discuss Africa on the campaign trail, nor was he asked to.
Much like the 1990s when Africa was left to its own devices, conflict rages in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa has fallen on the priority list. Beyond this, America has steadily been pivoting towards Asia since the Obama administration as they look to counter a rising China. This policy has been consistent with three different presidents. For those interested in Africa and its place in the world, what does the crystal ball reveal when we peer into it?
It is unlikely that there will be any dramatic changes under President Trump. Since there have been few discussions on his plan for Africa, we can only forecast based on what we know of him and the consistencies in American foreign policy. One of the benefits of predicting how the new government will act is that while the administration is serially new, Trump is not a new president; he is a known quantity and has remained in political consciousness after leaving office. Secondly, the President-elect does not favour the nuance and rituals of diplomacy or political dealmaking; he is refreshingly direct and often says what he intends to do and does it. It makes it easier to understand his intentions. Lastly, his foreign policy is incredibly idiosyncratic; decision-making will be centred around his preferences and priorities.
Trade and security have largely defined America’s current and historical relationship with post-independent Africa. Over the years, there has been a push for governance, constitutionalism, and social and human rights, but the bedrock has always been trade and security. Africa is currently dealing with a full-blown war in Sudan and several insurgencies in West, East and Southern Africa. The Sudanese conflict has been primarily mediated by the Quad, a collective of the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the UN and AU. Conflict parties have defied proposals for ceasefires and negotiations so far. A new American President is unlikely to change the dynamics; given President-elect Trump’s open disdain for committing American coin and personnel to foreign conflicts, especially conflicts he does not believe further American interests, we can expect a cooling of interest in the Sudanese conflict.
Across the way in West Africa, while the US has condemned the coups, it has played an outsized role in Niger, where it has not always been in concert with ECOWAS. Trade has fueled its interest in the sub-region, given its natural resources like oil and uranium and Russia’s growing influence as the partner of choice. It is doubtful that a Trump government will place the same strategic value on the sub-region. In addition, Trump’s many comments on Vladimir Putin make it possible to see the US allowing its influence in the sub-region to wane.
Turning to trade, China has overtaken the US as the primary trade partner for many African countries for some time now. That will not change under President Trump. His industrial and trade policies were protectionist and mercantilist during his first term, and from his recent comments on tariffs, that will remain the same during his second term. Trump plans to target countries he believes have an undue trade advantage over the US, but African countries do not fall into this category. While the administration will not place a strategic premium on the continent, there may be some inadvertent benefits as they consider new trade partners. Already, Rwanda is looking to capitalise on Trump’s immigration policies, which will see Rwanda provide processing units. Trump’s international relations are very transactional. If Africa wants to be considered a primary trade partner, it will need to give concessions, notably establishing the US military African Command on African soil. That request has usually been non-negotiable.
Other matters that concern African states, like the UN reform, which the US had recently signalled it was open to discuss, may see a dramatic shift. The President-elect views the world in terms of relative gains. He only measures what America gains relative to its competitors’ losses and vice versa. His administration will not support expanding the UN Security Council or diluting the veto. Discussions on giving Africa a permanent seat will not progress under his administration, which is consistent with his predecessors. Trump’s administration will also yield ground on climate change; African governments have been vocal leaders and can use this as an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Kenya is already making inroads on sustainability and establishing a viable carbon economy.
Another inadvertent consequence of President Trump’s disinterest in Africa is that African leaders will be forced to tend to their affairs and prioritise their development. The AU and IGAD have more room to mediate and end the conflict in Sudan; they have recorded success in the past. As a regional leader, Nigeria can marshal ECOWAS again and find a pathway for reintegration. It, too, has recorded success in the past. Only Africans owe Africa stewardship, Trump is at least honest about that.
Dr. Oyateru is a communication and development professional
