Africa has not been left behind in the over-arching implications of Donald Trump’s presidency. Much of the analyses on Africa’s interests in the Trump era have invariably painted a pessimistic picture.
The pessimism rides on the conclusion that Africa will be off the radar in President Trump’s White House. But how can African countries individually and collectively navigate the anticipated paradigm shift?
President Trump is first and foremost a businessman. At the top of the African foreign policy agenda towards America should be economic interests, political agenda should be secondary.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) is the foremost US economic policy towards Africa. This policy might be shredded by Mr Trump, as he is averse at preferential trade deals that have no benefits for the US.
One approach is for Africans to retaliate by raising the bar for the entry of American goods and services into Africa. It would be a strategic move calculated at raising stakes as a prerequisite to shrewd negotiations. It should be taken as a position that helps negotiations for the retention of Agoa in one form or another. As a businessman, Mr Trump is a dealmaker and reciprocity by some definition, lays the ground for deal-making.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Throughout his campaign, Mr Trump advocated physical military resources as opposed to or in addition to outgoing President Barack Obama’s “smart war”, based on deploying drones to target al-Shabaab, for instance.
The upshot is that African nations battling terrorism such as Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Nigeria could lobby for increased American boots-on-ground. Because of his America-first mantra, African countries have to demonstrate the deleterious effects of terrorism on American interests if they are to gain President Trump’s military and security budgetary support.
Although analysts have concluded that President Trump will step back from supporting African security challenges, the opposite could be true – based on interests. With respects to Iraq for instance, he has been candid about getting involved primarily for the energy resources the country holds, despite the many security challenges there.
One, therefore, has to look at which conflict prone regions of Africa President Trump will be forced to engage — not because he wants peace, but because Mr Trump’s America is hungry for resources that can fuel its economy.
If there is a compelling case for benefits to the US, the Trump administration will likely engage countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan because they are resource-rich and could help in his “make America great again” goal. The strategic approach here is for resource-endowed but conflict-prone African nations to position themselves as inevitable US allies.
GEOSTRATEGIC COMPETITION
President Trump seems to be laying out a geostrategic competition with China. US-China competition is good for Africa in the sense that the continent would be lobbied and courted by both powers as happened during the Cold War era.
Broadly speaking, Africa will be an important player in the ensuing global balance of power play. In the UN system for instance, Africa’s 54-nation membership has traditionally been crucial on voting on global issues of significance to the US, China and other global powers. (One blot is that the continent is not represented among the five permanent members of the security council.) A coordinated African position on global issues would be a card that even an Africa-apathetic President Trump wouldn’t resist.
Indeed, the UN will be the theatre for battles over climate change, a hot-button global issue. Climate change generally and the 2015 Paris agreement specifically is one among many other areas that African countries can use as bargaining chips at the UN level. In essence, Africa will be called on to evolve a sophisticated conflation of one global issue as a factor in negotiation with the US on another issue.
Realism suggests that individual African countries should be wary of conflicts with a powerful America under President Trump. It would, however, send a strong message if they forge ties with other global powers.
This indirect approach will have President Trump come calling on Africa just as President Obama made a comeback to Africa in the wake of the ascendency of China on the continent.
The implications of a clash between the US and China are too many to enumerate in one fell swoop. African countries diligently analyse the anticipated competition between Beijing and Washington and appropriately position themselves to draw benefits.
AMERICAN AID
It is anticipated that the US will cut back on aid to Africa. With many African countries reliant on American aid, it is expected that programmes in crucial areas such as healthcare will suffer, especially for least-developed countries.
On the flip side, however, the American’s withdrawal from funding certain programmes can help the continent overcome the donor-recipient dependency syndrome. It might boost the African Union objective of the continent funding its own initiatives rather than relying on external sources. Africa can seize this opportunity to reclaim its independence as this can be a shot-in-the-arm for crafting more equal cooperative relations and interdependence in the global system.
Neglect of Africa in US global foreign policy architecture might in the end give the continent more leverage to act with self-interest on the international stage.
Moreover, the neglect could also create vacuums to be filled by other powers on African terms. Even with regards to dictators celebrating the fact that a hands-off-Africa President Trump would give them leeway to abuse power unperturbed, there is an optimistic viewpoint. It is important to ask: Is the US the only constraint on autocratic tendencies in Africa? Indeed, it will be a test on the AU to sustain pressure on autocratic regimes.
It will be important to find out if and how US entities that dispense resources to Africa will be restructured under President Trump. Perhaps the most important are programmes supported by the United States Agency for International Development and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, among others. Such analyses would sensitise African governments on the shortfalls in funding as a prerequisite to seeking alternatives.
Additionally, it is well appreciated that donor funding is a means by which the US has traditionally exerted ideological influence on Africa. The evaporation of US donor funding would, therefore, give African countries greater room to evolve policies without having to align with US interests. Africans should not worry too much about being ditched by the US in the Trump era. They should instead run with the opportunities that this “new world order” portends.
Source: nation.co.ke