4 SESSION 1: US AFRICA RELATIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AFRICA

4.1 Beyond Rhetoric: Reimagining Africa - U.S. Relations in a Multipolar World

Prof. Efem Ubi, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (Nigeria)

The dynamic between Africa and the United States has long been characterised by a blend of aspiration and frustration, cooperation and imbalance. Despite decades of engagement, there is a prevailing sense that the relationship lacks depth, equity, and genuine mutual interest. In his presentation Professor provided a comprehensive analysis of Africa - U.S. relations, the persistent challenges, and a proposed path toward a more equitable and cooperative partnership.

4.1.1  Framing the discourse: Africa's position in U.S. calculations

The United States has consistently stated its commitment to Africa - supporting democratic institutions, fostering economic growth, and promoting peace and security. However, in practice, these promises often remain unfulfilled. The paradox between stated U.S. policy and its operational execution, suggests that Africa remains undervalued in the global political and economic hierarchy.

One of the central critiques is the terminology used to frame the relationship: the emphasis on “relations” rather than “cooperation.” Relations imply a loose connection, potentially hierarchical or distant, while cooperation implies equality, shared goals, and collaborative effort. This distinction reflects a deeper issue in how Africa is perceived and treated by global powers, particularly the U.S.

4.1.2  Strategic value and interests: A one-sided equation

There is growing concern that Africa is viewed more as an object of external interest than as an actor with its own agency. This asymmetry is evident in the way African nations are routinely analysed through the lens of U.S. interests—be it strategic military bases, natural resources, or geopolitical leverage—without equal consideration for Africa's developmental goals and aspirations.

Ubi criticised the preoccupation with understanding foreign powers’ interests in Africa - especially China's - at the expense of defining and pursuing Africa’s own interests. The need, then, is to reorient the discourse so that Africa becomes the subject, not the object, of international relations. Africa must assert its priorities in areas such as industrialisation, infrastructure development, and sovereign decision-making.

4.1.3  Unilateralism and superpower rivalries

A recurring theme in the speech was the frustration with the U.S. and other superpowers’ tendency to make unilateral decisions concerning Africa, often without consultation. This dynamic reflects a broader pattern of global governance that excludes African voices, undermines African agency, and perpetuates dependency.

Superpower rivalry - particularly between the U.S. and China - is seen as deeply detrimental to Africa’s development. Rather than fostering cooperation for Africa's advancement, these powers use the continent as a stage for their competition, reminiscent of the colonial-era scramble for Africa. Prof. Ubi recalled the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, where Africa was divided without any African input, and warns that contemporary rivalries risk repeating that historical injustice.

4.1.4  The case for multipolarity and dispersed power

The emergence of a multipolar world presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Africa. Moving away from unipolar or bipolar dominance allows Africa to engage with a variety of partners and pursue more balanced relationships. The concept of "disperse hegemonism" -  where no single power dominates globally - offers a framework for such a future.

South–South cooperation, as seen in groupings like BRICS, provides an alternative model. These coalitions allow developing nations to collaborate based on shared interests rather than subordination. Africa's increasing involvement in such alliances underscores its desire for a more inclusive global order.

4.1.5  Security, instability, and the legacy of inequality

The persistent instability across the African continent, especially in the Sahel region, is linked to both internal governance challenges and the legacy of external interference. The resurgence of military coups in West  Africa - Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and others - is viewed as a reaction to systemic injustice and a failure to address root causes of inequality.

Prof, Ubi stressed that military takeovers will not cease until structural inequalities are resolved. Addressing the root causes - economic marginalisation, lack of industrialisation, and poor infrastructure - is essential. Treating only the symptoms while ignoring the foundational issues will perpetuate the cycle of unrest.

4.1.6  Economic engagement: Aid vs. empowerment

U.S. economic engagement in Africa has often been dominated by humanitarian aid, which, while necessary in crises, does little to build long-term capacity. He called for a shift from aid-centred strategies to empowerment-focused economic policies that prioritise infrastructure, industrialisation, and value-added production.

Despite some positive trends - such as the U.S.–Africa trade increasing to $71 billion - the overall U.S. investment in Africa remains inconsistent and modest compared to emerging powers like China and India. For example, Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) skyrocketed from $135 million in 2005 to over $42 billion in recent years, demonstrating a more consistent and aggressive engagement model.

Prof. Ubi emphasised that Africa needs infrastructure, intermodal connectivity, and job-creating industries - not just short-term aid packages. U.S. companies should be encouraged to outsource and offshore operations to Africa, generating employment and technological transfer. Such partnerships would be mutually beneficial and go beyond paternalistic assistance.

4.1.7  Comparative approaches: U.S. vs. China

One of the starkest contrasts in Africa’s international partnerships lies in how China and the U.S. engage the continent. China operates with all 54 African countries, while the U.S. tends to focus only on strategic partners. This selective engagement reflects a hierarchy that marginalises many African nations and undermines continental unity.

Professor Ubi recounted a personal anecdote during Nigeria's struggle against terrorism, where the U.S. refused to supply necessary weapons, while China and Russia stepped in to assist. This example illustrates how strategic calculations - rather than shared humanity or solidarity - often guide U.S. decisions, to the detriment of long-term trust and cooperation.

4.1.8  Constructivism, interdependence, and changing narratives

International relations theories such as constructivism and complex interdependence are cited to underline the importance of perception and mutual interests. He argued that the U.S. must stop acting as a "Big Brother" and instead embrace the notion of interdependence, where both sides contribute and benefit equally.

There is a call for a fundamental change in how Africa is perceived - not as a problem to be solved, but as a partner with immense potential. This requires discarding outdated narratives and embracing a more respectful and balanced approach to international engagement.

4.1.9  The failure of prescriptive development models

The presentation also critiqued development models imposed by external institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) of the 1980s were highlighted as a clear example of failed prescriptions that led to economic stagnation rather than progress. None of the 27 African countries that implemented SAPs emerged stronger, highlighting the need for homegrown development strategies.

Africa must stop outsourcing its development to external actors and instead invest in deliberate, long-term plans rooted in local contexts. Prof Ubi urged African nations to adopt pragmatic five- or ten-year development strategies that are followed consistently and are resilient to external shocks or donor dependency.

4.1.10  Recommendations: Toward a rapprochement

To move beyond rhetoric and toward meaningful rapprochement, several strategic actions were proposed:

• Reframe the relationship as cooperation: Shift the narrative from "relations" to "cooperation," emphasising equality, partnership, and shared goals.

• Promote mutual interests: African nations must clearly articulate and pursue their own interests in all engagements, rather than being passive recipients of foreign agendas.

• Support Industrialisation and infrastructure: Replace humanitarian aid models with investments in production, manufacturing, and infrastructure that create lasting value.

• Encourage inclusive trade: Expand the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) to include support for value-added goods and diversification of exports.

• Reform global governance: Advocate for a multipolar world where African voices are heard, and decisions are made collectively, not unilaterally.

• End superpower rivalries in Africa: Global powers must stop using Africa as a battleground for strategic competition and instead collaborate for the continent’s development.

• Support sovereignty and agency: Avoid pressuring African countries into taking sides in global conflicts. Respect their sovereignty and right to independent foreign policy.

• Invest in African institutions: Encourage investment in local institutions and communities to foster stability, accountability, and long-term development.

4.1.11  Conclusion

Africa-U.S. relations stand at a crossroads. The legacy of unfulfilled promises, imbalanced power dynamics, and neglected agency must give way to a new era of cooperation, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. The United States must reassess its approach, moving from control and conditionality to partnership and empowerment. Likewise, Africa must take the reins of its development, articulate its goals, and seek partnerships that respect its sovereignty and potential.

As Prof. Ubi poignantly noted, development is not an accident - it is deliberate, strategic, and long-term. For Africa to rise, and for U.S.–Africa cooperation to thrive, both sides must act with purpose, humility, and vision.

4.2  United States–Africa Relations — Historical Legacy, Contemporary Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Ms Aïcha Karafi, President, Tunisian Association of Local Governance (Tunisia)

The relationship between the United States and Africa has evolved over several centuries, shaped by an intricate mix of history, politics, economics, security interests, and human development imperatives. From the dark era of the transatlantic slave trade to the ideological battles of the Cold War and the current dynamics of trade and diplomacy, the US–Africa partnership has been marked by fluctuations and asymmetries. Today, it faces the dual challenge of recalibrating old paradigms while navigating new global realities, such as rising Chinese influence and calls for greater African agency.

The presentation by Ms Aïcha  provided a comprehensive overview of the evolution of US–Africa relations, examining historical legacies, current tensions, and potential future directions for a more balanced and mutually beneficial partnership.

4.2.1  Historical Context

4.2.1.1  The transatlantic slave trade and its legacy

Between the 16th and 19th centuries, the transatlantic slave trade saw the forced deportation of over 12.5 million Africans to the Americas, with roughly 50,000 reaching the territory now known as the United States. This mass human trafficking had devastating demographic and social consequences for Africa. Nearly 2 million Africans died during the Middle Passage—a mortality rate of about 15%. West Africa alone lost up to 20% of its population, severely undermining the region’s economic productivity, social cohesion, and long-term development potential.

For the United States, slavery was foundational to its early economic growth. On the eve of the Civil War, the economic value of enslaved individuals was estimated at $3 billion, a figure that would amount to between $75 and $100 billion today. Cotton, produced predominantly by enslaved labour, accounted for 60% of US exports during the mid-19th century, underpinning the nation's rise as a global economic power.

The legacy of slavery continues to affect perceptions and relations. While the transatlantic slave trade legally ended in the 19th century, its moral and psychological consequences linger in collective memory, shaping African scepticism toward Western powers, including the United States.

4.2.1.2  The Cold War: Strategic interests over development

During the Cold War (1946–1991), the US viewed Africa through the lens of ideological competition with the Soviet Union. Africa became a geopolitical chessboard, with Washington providing over $1.5 billion in military and economic aid to curb Soviet influence.

Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) received over $300 million in American aid from 1965 to 1990. Angola’s civil war exemplifies how superpower rivalry exacerbated internal African conflicts. The war, stoked by both US and Soviet support for rival factions, led to over 500,000 deaths and the displacement of millions. This era entrenched authoritarian regimes supported for strategic purposes, sidelining democratic governance and long-term development.

4.2.2  Post-Cold War shift: Economic engagement and soft power

With the end of the Cold War, the United States gradually shifted its focus from ideological rivalry to economic diplomacy. The enactment of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2000 marked a significant development. AGOA allowed eligible African countries to export goods to the US duty-free. While the initiative aimed to boost African exports and encourage market-based economic reforms, its actual impact has been modest.

In 2021, African exports under AGOA reached $7.6 billion, consisting mainly of oil, textiles, and agricultural products. However, this represents only 1–2% of total US trade, pointing to the structural limitations of the programme. Moreover, AGOA remains unidirectional: it primarily benefits countries that meet US-defined eligibility criteria, reinforcing dependency rather than equal partnership.

4.2.3  Humanitarian engagement and health diplomacy

The launch of PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) in 2003 demonstrated a significant humanitarian commitment. Over $100 billion has been invested in combating HIV/AIDS, saving an estimated 25 million lives by 2023 and drastically reducing mortality by nearly 50%. More than 18 million individuals across Africa are currently on antiretroviral treatment due to this programme.

In addition, US official development assistance to Africa totalled around $8 billion in 2020, primarily directed toward health, education, and agriculture. However, this aid is often criticised for lacking coordination with local priorities, relying heavily on US-based contractors, and failing to ensure sustainable outcomes.

4.2.4  Contemporary Challenges in US–Africa Relations

4.2.4.1  Trade Imbalances and structural asymmetries

Africa’s total trade with the US in 2022 was $64 billion, of which $26 billion represented African exports. In contrast, the US exported $48 billion to Africa, highlighting a trade imbalance that favours the US. This asymmetry is further underscored by the limited diversification of African exports, which remain concentrated in low-value goods such as raw materials and textiles.

Despite efforts like AGOA, the economic relationship is still predominantly extractive. African countries are calling for more equitable trade arrangements that promote industrialisation and value addition on the continent.

4.2.4.2  The China factor

China’s growing influence has dramatically altered the geopolitical landscape in Africa. With bilateral trade reaching $254 billion in 2021 and investments totalling over $150 billion since 2005, China is now Africa’s largest trading partner. Much of this investment targets infrastructure—roads, ports, railways—and extractive industries.

While critics argue that China engages in "debt diplomacy," many African governments view Chinese aid and investment as faster, less conditional, and more responsive to national development goals than traditional Western assistance. The US, by contrast, is often seen as promoting conditionality, requiring political or economic reforms that are not always locally popular or relevant.

4.2.4.3  Mutual misperceptions and cultural disconnects

Public perceptions reflect underlying tensions. A 2020 Afrobarometer survey indicated that 59% of Africans held a favourable view of the US, compared to 63% for China. On the other side, only 45% of Americans viewed Sub-Saharan Africa positively. These views are shaped by media portrayals, limited cultural exchanges, and historical narratives that perpetuate stereotypes on both sides.

Such misunderstandings undermine mutual trust and complicate diplomatic relations, making it harder to build enduring partnerships grounded in respect and shared values.

4.2.4.4  Governance and corruption as barriers

Corruption remains a major obstacle to US investment. Transparency International reports that most African countries score below the global average of 43/100 in governance indices. The cost of corruption in Africa is estimated at $148 billion annually, deterring American firms that fear reputational damage or legal complications.

While the US has imposed anti-corruption sanctions in several African states, these measures often lack corresponding diplomatic efforts to build transparent institutions. Without coordinated strategies, punitive approaches can further marginalise African states from global economic networks.

4.2.4.5  Security engagement and humanitarian consequences

The US maintains a significant military presence in Africa, focusing on counterterrorism and maritime security. However, military interventions, drone operations, and support for regional militaries have occasionally produced civilian casualties and governance vacuums.

These interventions cost the US roughly $2 billion annually but have mixed results. Some critics argue that excessive militarization undermines democratic institutions and displaces resources from development-focused engagement.

4.2.5 The structural dependence problem

Programmes like AGOA and PEPFAR are largely shaped by American strategic interests. This one-sided design reduces African agency in determining the scope and focus of bilateral cooperation. For example, South Africa—Africa’s most industrialised economy—exports around 10% of its goods to the US. Yet it has limited input into the renewal or reform of AGOA.

The broader aid architecture promotes dependency rather than ownership. To transform this dynamic, African countries must be given space to define the rules of engagement and co-create frameworks that align with their national priorities.

4.2.6  Toward a new strategic partnership

A future-oriented US–Africa relationship must prioritise:

• Investment over Aid: Replace conditional assistance with direct investments in African-led projects, especially in manufacturing, green energy, and digital technology.

• Support for Continental Initiatives: Align with Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to deepen regional integration.

• Capacity-Building: Fund training programmes, research institutions, and vocational education to build a skilled African workforce.

• Local Ownership: Shift power toward African governments and civil society actors in the planning and execution of development projects.

• Balanced Narrative: Promote educational and cultural exchanges to challenge stereotypes and foster mutual understanding.

4.2.7  Country focus: Tunisia

Tunisia exemplifies both the promise and the challenges of US–Africa engagement. As a small North African market facing political instability, it has remained on the periphery of US foreign policy. Yet Tunisia holds significant potential in education, renewable energy, and tourism. With targeted investment and political support, it could serve as a model for equitable and inclusive development in the region.

4.2.8  Conclusion

US–Africa relations are at a critical juncture. The legacy of the past continues to weigh heavily, but the future remains open to new possibilities. By moving beyond aid dependency and toward a partnership of equals, both sides can benefit. The United States must recognize Africa not just as a recipient of charity or a theatre of competition with China, but as a continent of sovereign states with ambitions, agency, and potential.

A recalibrated relationship rooted in respect, mutual benefit, and shared values can redefine 21st-century diplomacy and development.

4.3  The Importance of African Agency in US–Africa Relations

Dr Melha Rout Biel, Executive Director, Institute for Strategic and Policy Studies (South Sudan)

In the evolving landscape of international relations, the engagement between the United States and African nations remains a critical axis of global diplomacy. However, for decades, this relationship has been shaped more by external imperatives than by African priorities. As the global order undergoes profound shifts—marked by the rise of multipolarity, renewed geopolitical competition, and increasing calls for equity in international governance—there is a growing recognition that the success of US–Africa relations hinges on a central principle: African agency.

This report delves into the concept of African agency, contextualises its relevance in historical and contemporary US–Africa relations, and outlines the structural changes needed to make this principle a reality. It draws on core ideas presented in the source text to argue for a transformation in how African agency is perceived, respected, and operationalised.

4.3.1  Historical context and structural power asymmetries

Understanding the importance of African agency requires a reckoning with the history of external engagement on the continent. US–Africa relations have traditionally been shaped by asymmetrical power dynamics that emerged from colonial legacies, Cold War geopolitics, and donor-recipient paradigms. Throughout the 20th century, US foreign policy toward Africa was driven largely by strategic interests—such as access to natural resources, countering Soviet influence, and managing migration and security threats—rather than a genuine commitment to Africa’s development or political empowerment.

In practice, this translated into policy prescriptions often rooted in neoliberal economic reforms, military assistance programmes, and externally imposed governance models. African states were treated not as equal partners, but as laboratories for foreign aid experiments or as pawns in broader global rivalries. The resultant aid-dependency and loss of policy sovereignty undermined African self-determination, while limiting the continent’s ability to negotiate on its own terms.

These legacies still cast a long shadow, influencing how African states are perceived and how their voices are integrated (or excluded) in global forums such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

4.3.2  The rise of multipolarity: A strategic inflection point

The 21st century has witnessed significant changes in the global order, with the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the growing influence of middle powers such as India, Turkey, and Brazil. This shift toward multipolarity has redefined the strategic calculus of many African states, providing them with new diplomatic and economic options.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for instance, has poured billions of dollars into African infrastructure, offering an alternative model of engagement that challenges Western dominance. Russia has also deepened ties with several African countries through military cooperation, arms sales, and energy deals. Meanwhile, regional blocs like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) have strengthened the continent’s internal economic integration and negotiating power.

This changing environment presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, African countries can leverage competition among external actors to maximise benefits and reduce dependency. On the other hand, the return of great power rivalry could lead to new forms of neo-colonialism or strategic manipulation if African agency is not consciously prioritised.

4.3.3  Defining African agency

At its core, African agency refers to the capacity of African actors—states, institutions, civil society, and individuals—to make independent choices, set priorities based on domestic needs, and shape international engagement in ways that advance their interests. It involves more than token participation in global affairs; it demands meaningful leadership, agenda-setting power, and accountability to African citizens rather than to external stakeholders.

Practicing African agency entails:

• Policy autonomy: The ability to design and implement policies free from undue foreign influence.

• Ownership of development: Driving national and continental development strategies grounded in local knowledge and contexts.

• Representation: Ensuring African voices are adequately and authentically represented in global governance institutions.

• Norm entrepreneurship: Contributing to the evolution of international norms on security, democracy, and sustainability from an African perspective.

4.3.4  African institutions as engines of agency

The institutionalisation of African agency is most visible in the role of the African Union (AU), regional economic communities (RECs), and platforms like the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). These bodies have become increasingly assertive in articulating common positions and coordinating responses to continental challenges, such as conflict mediation, public health, and climate change.

The AU’s Agenda 2063 serves as a long-term blueprint for Africa’s development, grounded in principles of inclusivity, sustainability, and sovereignty. It envisions an integrated, prosperous, and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens. For US policy to be aligned with African agency, it must engage with these frameworks as foundational—not peripheral—documents.

Furthermore, the AfCFTA marks a significant step in building a continent-wide economic bloc that enhances bargaining power in global trade negotiations. For the US, supporting such African-led initiatives rather than imposing bilateral agreements that fragment the continent is essential for building trust and legitimacy.

4.3.5  Challenges to operationalising African agency

While the normative case for African agency is strong, several structural and political obstacles hinder its full realisation:

• Fragmentation and lack of coordination: Despite rhetorical commitments to unity, African states often diverge on key issues due to differing national interests, political regimes, and external allegiances. This weakens collective bargaining efforts.

• Weak institutional capacity: Many African institutions, including the AU, struggle with limited funding, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and a lack of enforcement mechanisms. This impairs their ability to implement continental decisions effectively.

• External conditionalities: Aid and investment from Western and multilateral donors often come with conditions that limit policy space. Whether it is austerity measures, governance benchmarks, or military cooperation agreements, these conditions can undermine sovereignty.

• Perceptions and narratives: African actors continue to face patronising attitudes from Western policymakers and media, which frame the continent as a place of perpetual crisis rather than of agency and innovation. This narrative gap affects how African agency is received abroad.

Addressing these challenges requires action on both sides: African states must invest in political will, institutional development, and intra-continental solidarity, while the US must shift its approach from managing Africa to partnering with Africa.

4.3.6  Toward a new model of US–Africa engagement

If African agency is to be respected and enhanced, the United States must adopt a fundamentally different approach to its engagement with the continent. This includes:

• Listening first: Policy frameworks should be shaped in consultation with African partners, not imposed from Washington. Listening tours, joint working groups, and continuous dialogue with AU bodies can foster mutual understanding.

• Aligning with African priorities: US aid, trade, and security policies should support existing African strategies such as Agenda 2063 and the AfCFTA. This ensures coherence and prevents duplication or contradiction.

• Supporting capacity-building: Rather than just providing technical assistance, the US should help build long-term institutional capacities in governance, public health, education, and infrastructure.

• Championing reform in global institutions: The US should advocate for fairer representation of Africa in institutions like the UN Security Council and the IMF. This demonstrates a commitment to justice, not just charity.

• Encouraging mutual accountability: Transparency and accountability should be bilateral. The US should hold itself to the same standards it expects of African partners—on issues like human rights, transparency, and corruption.

4.3.7  Conclusion

As Africa becomes an increasingly central player in global affairs—home to the youngest population, vast natural resources, and rising economic potential—its agency cannot remain an afterthought in international engagement. For US–Africa relations to be meaningful, sustainable, and mutually beneficial, they must be founded on respect for African self-determination.

This is not simply a matter of moral obligation but of strategic foresight. A partnership rooted in African agency will be more resilient, more innovative, and more capable of addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century. In turn, African states must continue to assert their voice, strengthen regional cohesion, and build institutions that reflect the aspirations of their people.

Only then can the narrative of Africa as a subject of foreign influence be transformed into one of Africa as a sovereign actor shaping its own destiny—and contributing to a more balanced, equitable world order.

4.4  Evolving US–West Africa Economic Relations - Implications for Côte d’Ivoire

Professor Assi Kimou, Deputy Director, CIRES Economic Policy Analysis Unit (Cote d’Ivoire)

The relationship between the United States and Africa, particularly West Africa and Côte d’Ivoire, has been shaped by historical neglect, shifting priorities, and transactional policies under successive US administrations. This contribution by Professor Kimou explores the contemporary dynamics of the US - Africa economic partnership, focusing on trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), development assistance, immigration, and security cooperation. It seeks to understand the evolving role of the US in Côte d’Ivoire’s development trajectory and assess the prospects and risks associated with these shifting dynamics.

4.4.1  Changing trends in US - Africa economic relations

Over the decades, the US - Africa relationship has seen fluctuating levels of engagement. While diplomatic and political ties have persisted, economic relations have often been characterised by marginalisation. African countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, have not always been central to US foreign economic policy. When initiatives have been introduced - such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) - they often focused disproportionately on raw material extraction, particularly oil, with limited strategic investment in structural economic transformation.

The recent US approach, particularly under President Trump’s administration, adopted a more transactional nature, focusing on advancing American interests. This shift marked a departure from multilateral and development-oriented engagement. As a result, Africa’s importance in US foreign policy, though rhetorically acknowledged, often failed to translate into robust economic support or long-term investment strategies.

4.4.2  Trade dynamics and AGOA: A mixed blessing

AGOA, enacted in 2000, was intended to enhance market access to the US for qualifying sub-Saharan African countries. Côte d’Ivoire emerged as one of its beneficiaries, anticipating substantial growth in exports. In 2019, the country’s AGOA-related exports were valued at approximately $1 billion, with projections of increasing to over $3.5 billion by 2025. However, this potential remains precarious. If AGOA were discontinued or significantly reduced, Côte d’Ivoire stands to lose billions in trade revenue, severely impacting its balance of payments and development plans.

AGOA’s benefits, while real, are limited in scope. They focus largely on unprocessed goods, reinforcing Africa's traditional role in the global supply chain as a supplier of raw materials. The absence of policies that support local value addition, technology transfer, or industrial capacity building reduces AGOA’s transformative potential for countries like Côte d’Ivoire.

4.4.3  Foreign direct investment (FDI): Quality over quantity

Another pillar of US economic engagement with Africa is FDI. Although the US maintains a relatively modest FDI footprint on the continent compared to the European Union and China, the nature of these investments is critical. Only around 30% of US FDI targets manufacturing, whereas the EU allocates 40% of its FDI to sectors that support structural transformation, including industrial development and infrastructure.

For Côte d’Ivoire, the implications are clear: a heavier reliance on US FDI risks reinforcing extractive economic models unless there is a pivot toward industrial and human capital development. Declining FDI trends in Côte d’Ivoire and West Africa overall highlight the urgent need for a strategic overhaul, encouraging investment in manufacturing, technology, and services.

4.4.4  Foreign aid and development assistance: A shrinking commitment

USAID has historically been a key development partner for West African countries. However, data indicates that 68 project awards totalling over $360 million are slated for termination in West Africa. These projects span critical sectors such as agriculture, education, health, and governance. Côte d’Ivoire, facing serious security challenges related to violent extremism, has already seen the closure of crucial counterterrorism programmes.

Health is particularly vulnerable. In 2020, USAID and PEPFAR accounted for over 55% of Côte d’Ivoire’s HIV/AIDS funding, while the national government contributed less than 10%. A modelling study conducted to simulate different funding scenarios showed that if the funding gap were not met, up to 76,000 people could die from AIDS-related causes between 2020 and 2025. Even under a “stable” scenario, where the government maintains treatment for those already on antiretroviral therapy, the impact on public health would be profound.

Economically, the cessation of HIV funding would decrease GDP by an estimated 0.35 percentage points by 2025. This demonstrates the tight interlinkages between health aid and macroeconomic stability in developing countries.

4.4.5  Immigration, education, and remittances: An overlooked economic channel

US immigration policy also plays a significant role in shaping Africa’s economic fortunes. The number of West African students in the United States has grown by 66% in recent years, with most enrolled in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. These students represent an investment in the continent’s future capacity for innovation and economic development.

However, if the US imposes restrictive immigration or visa policies, the educational and economic pipeline may be disrupted. For Côte d’Ivoire, maintaining this educational link is crucial, as it builds a cadre of highly skilled professionals essential for national development.

Remittances are another critical dimension. Between 2014 and 2023, West African countries received between $6–7 billion in remittances from the US. Côte d’Ivoire alone received between $300–400 million annually. This inflow surpasses many forms of foreign aid and is a vital source of household income, investment capital, and economic resilience. Restrictive immigration policies could reduce remittance flows, thereby weakening economic stability in the region.

4.4.6  Strategic imperatives for Côte d’Ivoire

Given these challenges, Côte d’Ivoire must pursue a multi-pronged strategy to safeguard and diversify its development prospects:

• Enhance domestic resource mobilisation: The government must reduce its dependency on external funding by improving tax collection, broadening the tax base, and curbing corruption. Efforts should also focus on formalising the informal sector to increase public revenue.

• Invest in industrialisation and value addition: Rather than exporting raw cocoa or rubber, Côte d’Ivoire should invest in processing industries. This will create jobs, enhance export value, and reduce vulnerability to global commodity price fluctuations.

• Leverage the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA): Regional integration under the AfCFTA offers Côte d’Ivoire access to a broader market. This can serve as a buffer against international policy shifts while promoting intra-African trade and industrial cooperation.

• Pursue strategic partnerships: While maintaining ties with the US, Côte d’Ivoire should deepen relations with other global powers such as the EU, China, India, and emerging economies. Diversifying partnerships reduces reliance on any single country and enhances bargaining power.

• Promote dialogue with the US: Despite the transactional nature of recent US policies, Côte d’Ivoire should continue engaging in dialogue with American stakeholders. Advocating for sustained AGOA benefits, educational exchange programmes, and security cooperation remains essential.

4.4.7  Conclusion

Côte d’Ivoire stands at a crossroads in its economic relationship with the United States. While historical neglect and recent transactional shifts pose significant challenges, there remain opportunities for recalibrating the relationship. By investing in domestic capacity, fostering regional integration, and pursuing a diversified foreign policy, Côte d’Ivoire can chart a sustainable and sovereign path forward.

At the same time, it is essential for the US to reconsider its strategic posture toward Africa. Long-term engagement, built on mutual benefit and development cooperation, would not only serve African interests but also contribute to global stability and shared prosperity. The future of Côte d’Ivoire and West Africa hinges on responsive policymaking—both domestically and in Washington.

4.5  Pan-Africanism, African Diplomacy, and Development - A Critical Analysis

Prof. Francis Matambalya, Chief Executive Officer, Kamanda Rajabu Diwani Centre (Tanzania)

Pan-Africanism is more than an abstract ideological ideal; it is a historically rooted, practical response to centuries of colonisation, slavery, underdevelopment, and cultural erasure. Emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among intellectuals and activists of African descent, the ideology calls for the unity, self-determination, and collective advancement of African peoples on the continent and in the diaspora. Prof. Matambalya, in his presentation, evaluated Pan-Africanism as a framework for contemporary African diplomacy, development, cultural resurgence, and global agency. he emphasised the ideology’s transformative potential, critiques its limitations, and suggests ways forward for African states and societies.

4.5.1  Pan-Africanism as a framework for African unity

Pan-Africanism emerged as a liberation philosophy rooted in the experiences of slavery, colonialism, and racism. Figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, and Amílcar Cabral envisioned a unified Africa that could assert its sovereignty and build an equitable, dignified future for its peoples.

At its core, Pan-Africanism calls for:

• Political unity to resist imperialist domination

• Economic cooperation to reduce dependence on foreign aid and capital

• Cultural solidarity that celebrates African heritage

• Institutional frameworks for collective governance and policy-making

   

Historical examples such as the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 and its successor, the African Union (AU), reflect institutional attempts to realise these goals. However, continental unity remains a work in progress, hampered by political fragmentation, elite nationalism, and weak enforcement of collective decisions.

4.5.2  The role of education in post-colonial reconstruction

Education is central to any meaningful Pan-African project. In many African countries, formal education remains structured around colonial legacies, privileging Western epistemologies, languages, and paradigms. This contributes to a disconnection between knowledge production and the lived realities of African societies.

Decolonising education involves:

• Reclaiming indigenous knowledge systems, oral traditions, and spiritual philosophies

• Promoting African languages as mediums of instruction

• Training a new generation of critical thinkers, engineers, scientists, and public leaders attuned to the continent's developmental challenges

• The model proposed by the Dar es Salaam school of thought in the 1960s and 70s—where education was linked directly to development planning, local empowerment, and socialist values—remains relevant today.

Institutions such as the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) and the African Studies Association are actively engaged in fostering independent research, curriculum reform, and scholarly exchange rooted in African worldviews.

4.5.3  African diplomacy and the global order

Post-independence African diplomacy was initially guided by anti-colonial solidarity and non-alignment during the Cold War. However, the global political economy of the 1980s and 1990s, marked by neoliberal reforms and structural adjustment programmes, diminished Africa’s diplomatic leverage. In the contemporary era, the global order is being reshaped by multipolarity, with emerging powers challenging Western dominance.

A Pan-African approach to diplomacy requires:

• Coherent and coordinated foreign policy positions at multilateral forums (UN, WTO, COP summits)

• The establishment of African-led peacekeeping and conflict resolution mechanisms

• Enhanced capacity for trade negotiation and dispute arbitration

For instance, the African Union's role in mediating conflicts in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel demonstrates an evolving regional diplomatic capacity. Likewise, Africa’s Common Position on Climate Change, articulated in forums such as COP27, highlights efforts to build consensus on global issues.

However, progress is hindered by overlapping regional groupings, language and legal system differences, and the uneven capacity of states to implement continental decisions.

4.5.4  Ideological clarity and the challenges of elite capture

A significant limitation of modern Pan-Africanism is its frequent co-optation by ruling elites. Pan-African rhetoric is often used to justify state interests, suppress dissent, or secure legitimacy without advancing tangible liberation outcomes.

Key issues include:

• State-centrism: Pan-Africanism is often reduced to elite summits and diplomatic platitudes, with limited popular participation

• Contradictory alliances: Some states proclaim Pan-African values while partnering with exploitative foreign powers or repressing internal opposition

• Donor dependency: Many Pan-African initiatives rely on external funding, undermining ideological sovereignty and grassroots ownership

Reinvigorating the movement requires reclaiming Pan-Africanism as a people-driven, revolutionary project grounded in justice, equity, and democratic accountability. Civil society, trade unions, and youth movements play a critical role in this reclamation.

4.5.5  Economic sovereignty and structural transformation

Africa’s integration into the global economy remains extractive and unequal. The continent exports raw materials and imports finished goods, locking many countries into neocolonial economic relationships. True development requires structural transformation of economic systems to achieve self-reliance and inclusive growth.

Key elements include:

• Industrialisation: Building manufacturing capacity and promoting agro-industrial value chains

• Regional integration: Using mechanisms like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to boost intra-African trade and economies of scale

• Technology and innovation: Investing in research, green energy, and digital economies that leapfrog traditional development models

• Land and food sovereignty: Reclaiming land for equitable use, supporting smallholder farmers, and protecting seed diversity from corporate capture

Moreover, Africa’s debt burden continues to pose a threat to sovereignty. Structural adjustment and debt repayment have diverted resources away from social services. Debt cancellation and the establishment of continental financial institutions (e.g., an African Monetary Fund) are frequently proposed as remedies.

4.5.6  Geopolitical alignment and strategic autonomy

Africa’s strategic location and natural wealth make it a key player in 21st-century geopolitics. Relationships with the U.S., China, Russia, the EU, India, and Gulf states must be navigated with caution and foresight. A Pan-African approach rejects dependency and asserts the right of African nations to determine their development paths.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Russia’s engagement in security and energy, and the West’s renewed interest in Africa all present opportunities and risks. African states must ensure that:

• Infrastructure and security agreements serve long-term developmental goals

• Natural resources are leveraged for value-added growth, not raw export

• Strategic partnerships are diversified to avoid one-sided dependencies

The principle of “African solutions to African problems” remains vital in addressing regional crises and reducing reliance on foreign intervention.

4.5.7  Cultural liberation and identity reconstruction

Cultural decolonisation is central to psychological liberation. Colonialism imposed European norms, languages, and values while denigrating African belief systems and traditions. Reversing this cultural violence involves recovering pride in African identity and cultivating a cultural renaissance.

This includes:

• Restitution of stolen cultural artifacts held in Western museums

• Investment in African film, literature, and visual arts as tools of expression and resistance

• Support for Pan-African cultural festivals and heritage programmes

• Reforming educational curricula to reflect African histories and contributions

Youth-led movements in music (Afrobeats, Amapiano), fashion, and literature are already leading this resurgence. Afrocentrism, once dismissed as fringe, has gained global visibility and respect, creating transnational cultural bonds.

4.5.8  Contemporary relevance and youth engagement

Young people under 35 make up over 60% of Africa’s population. Their demographic weight and digital fluency position them at the forefront of contemporary Pan-Africanism. From student movements to climate strikes and entrepreneurial networks, youth are reshaping the narrative of African futures.

Initiatives such as:

• The African Youth Charter

• Regional youth parliaments and leadership programmes

• Tech hubs and digital advocacy platforms

• Pan-African podcasting and social media communities

are giving voice to a generation that demands inclusion, justice, and transformation. Issues like climate change, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and employment are central to this generation’s activism. Their Pan-Africanism is intersectional, global in outlook, and unapologetically assertive.

4.5.9  Institutional frameworks and continental governance

The African Union and regional economic communities (RECs) such as ECOWAS, SADC, and EAC provide mechanisms for collective action. However, these institutions face chronic challenges:

• Funding deficits

• Overlapping mandates

• Political interference from member states

• Limited enforcement capacity

Agenda 2063—the AU’s development blueprint—articulates a long-term vision of “The Africa We Want,” grounded in integration, peace, and prosperity. While symbolically powerful, the implementation of such frameworks depends on national buy-in, citizen participation, and institutional reform.

Proposals to strengthen AU legitimacy include:

• Creating a Pan-African Parliament with legislative powers

• Streamlining RECs to avoid duplication

• Increasing contributions from member states to reduce foreign dependency

• Establishing an independent African Court of Justice

4.5.10  Conclusion

Pan-Africanism remains an indispensable ideology and praxis for addressing Africa’s historical traumas and contemporary aspirations. Its enduring relevance lies in its comprehensive vision—one that combines political unity, economic transformation, cultural affirmation, and global justice.

To fulfil its promise, Pan-Africanism must move beyond rhetoric. It must become a living framework for policymaking, institutional design, and mass mobilisation. This requires the active engagement of African states, grassroots movements, intellectual communities, and diaspora networks.

Africa stands at a crossroads. The choices made today—regarding diplomacy, education, economics, and culture—will shape the continent's place in the 21st century. By embracing a bold, decolonised, and people-centred Pan-Africanism, Africa can chart a path toward liberation, resilience, and unity.

4.6  Africa and the United States - Reimagining a Strategic and Equitable Partnership

Ambassador Omar Mjenga, President and CEO, Centre for International Policy Africa (Tanzania)

The dynamics of United States–Africa relations have long been shaped by asymmetries in power, historical legacies, and shifting global interests. The reflections presented by Ambassador Omar Mjenga capture key themes that define the current and future trajectories of Africa–US engagement. They explore Africa's evolving geopolitical relevance, structural imbalances in global diplomacy, and the urgent call for Africa to assert itself on the world stage—not merely as a beneficiary of aid but as an active shaper of its destiny. This report synthesises those insights into a structured narrative, assessing the past and present, and offering a vision for a more balanced future.

4.6.1  Africa’s strategic priorities and the vision of unity

Africa’s contemporary policy engagements span six interrelated domains: defence, peace, and security; foreign policy and decision-making; democracy and global governance; gender and women's issues; energy and climate change; and international economic policies. These pillars reflect the continent's broad-based aspirations for transformation and its desire to reposition itself as a global influencer.

Central to this vision is a united Africa. Unity is not merely rhetorical; it implies deeper integration, coherent policies, and consolidated diplomatic leverage. Ambassador Mjenga reflected on the transformative leadership of Kofi Annan, the first African Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the thwarted candidacy of Dr Salim Ahmed Salim, whose pan-Africanist credentials and advocacy for China’s reintegration into the UN likely provoked Western resistance. These anecdotes illustrate the complex interplay between African ambition and global power politics.

4.6.2  Perceptions of Africa and its place in global diplomacy

Perceptions shape policy. Mjenga contrasts how Africa views itself with how it is perceived globally, particularly in the West. While Africa is the fastest-growing region with enormous natural and demographic resources, it remains marginalised in global institutions and narratives. This contradiction is starkly highlighted by a diplomatic exchange involving US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gabon's President Ali Bongo, in which African efforts to include the continent on the UN Security Council agenda were met with scepticism.

The statement that without Africa, the Security Council would have “no business” underscores the centrality of the continent’s challenges and opportunities to global peace and development. Yet, Africa remains too often the subject of external decisions rather than a participant in shaping outcomes.

4.6.3  The Legacy of the past and the weight of history

No discussion of US-Africa relations is complete without acknowledging the historical roots of the relationship, particularly the transatlantic slave trade. This foundational injustice has framed much of the structural imbalance that still characterises engagement between Africa and Western powers.

Contemporary interactions—whether through trade agreements like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) or aid programmes like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—are seen not as benevolent acts but as partial redress for historical exploitation. Referencing Frantz Fanon, Ambassador Mjenga argues that development in the West is built on African extraction, and Africans should not beg for opportunities like AGOA—they should demand restitution and equity.

4.6.4  A call for dignity in engagement

The ambassador raises a critical question about dignity and respect in diplomatic relations. Why, he asks, are African heads of state always summoned to Washington for the US-Africa Summit? Why are they herded into buses like tourists, when no Western leader would accept such treatment abroad?

This rhetorical critique points to deeper issues of self-respect and sovereignty. Africans, he argues, are sometimes disrespected because they do not demand respect. For Africa to command equal treatment, it must first believe in and assert its own value. This includes behaving geopolitically with the same confidence and assertiveness that countries like Russia and China exhibit toward the US.

4.6.5  The impact of US domestic politics on Africa

US policy towards Africa varies significantly depending on the administration in power. The speaker critiques the administration of former President Donald Trump for erasing Africa from the US foreign policy map. Trump’s first term saw no visits to Africa, diminished foreign aid, and a travel ban that affected several African nations. If a second term is similar, Africa should brace for further marginalisation, with engagement restricted primarily to security and humanitarian issues.

This disengagement creates a geopolitical vacuum that may be filled by emerging powers such as China and Russia. The US’s inconsistent and incoherent approach to Africa weakens its influence and invites others to step in with more sustained and strategic commitments.

4.6.6  Trade and the future of AGOA

Currently, 32 African countries qualify for AGOA, but only a small handful—approximately five nations—account for the vast majority of its benefits. This imbalance demonstrates the limited utility of AGOA as a development tool for the broader continent.

With AGOA set to expire, Mjenga urges African leaders to prepare for its potential non-renewal. Quoting a Swahili proverb, he stresses the importance of readiness and foresight: “Whenever you see your colleague being shaved, prepare your head.” Africa must not wait passively for Washington’s decision; it must strategise for alternatives that enhance self-reliance and regional integration.

4.6.7  Demographics and the African advantage

Africa’s greatest asset may well be its people. With a rapidly growing population and a burgeoning youth demographic, the continent is poised to play a decisive role in the global economy. By 2050, three out of every ten young people in the world will be African.

This demographic dividend could fuel massive economic growth—if properly harnessed. Strategic investment in education, infrastructure, and entrepreneurship will be key. Moreover, Africa must negotiate with global partners from a position of strength, offering not just natural resources but a vibrant labour market and consumer base.

4.6.8  Policy recommendations for a balanced partnership

The report outlines several key recommendations for reshaping US-Africa relations into a more balanced and mutually beneficial partnership:

• Leverage Strengths: The US should stop focusing narrowly on countering China and Russia in Africa. Instead, it should capitalise on its comparative advantages—such as democratic institutions, technology, and higher education—to offer value-based partnerships.

• Develop a Coherent Strategy: Current US policy in Africa is reactive and fragmented. A unified, long-term strategy is essential, one that integrates economic development, security, good governance, and regional cooperation.

• Foster Local Leadership: Through initiatives like the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), the US should continue to support the emergence of competent, ethical, and innovative African leadership.

• Empower the Diaspora: African diasporas in the US and beyond can serve as bridges for trade, investment, and cultural exchange. They should be more actively engaged in shaping bilateral relations.

• Support Institutional Capacity: Instead of imposing external aid structures like USAID, the focus should shift to building strong African institutions that can manage their own development agendas.

4.6.9  Toward self-reliance and continental resilience

The dismantling of USAID, while viewed by some as a blow to Africa, is seen as an opportunity. Drawing from Tanzania’s founding father Julius Nyerere, Ambassador Mjenga reminded the audience of the foundational enemies of African development: poverty, ignorance, and disease. These challenges are best met through domestic resource mobilisation, industrial policy, and regional cooperation—not through dependency on Western aid.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s response to USAID’s collapse was emblematic of a new wave of thinking: that Africa must now build its own capacity, leverage its own resources, and lead its own development. This pivot toward sovereignty and self-determination could be the foundation for a stronger, more independent Africa.

4.6.10  Conclusion

The speaker closes with an African proverb: “The hand that feeds the other is higher than the one that receives.” This metaphor captures the asymmetry that continues to define Africa’s engagement with powers like the United States. But the message is clear: it is time for Africa to raise its own hand—to be the one that gives, negotiates, and sets the terms.

The future of US-Africa relations must be built on dignity, mutual respect, and strategic clarity. Africa is not a passive recipient of goodwill. It is a continent rich in potential, steeped in history, and ready to claim its place in the world. For the United States, the opportunity lies not in dominating Africa but in partnering with it—for shared prosperity in an increasingly multipolar world.

4.7  Reimagining US–Africa Relations - Priorities, Challenges, and Strategic Pathways

Dr Zine Barka, Independent Public Finance Analyst (Algeria)

The evolving dynamics of US–Africa relations continue to shape the trajectory of development, governance, and security across the African continent. The key themes explored by Dr Barka concerned governance priorities, investment, foreign aid, and Africa’s place in the global geopolitical system. It builds upon those reflections to analyse the state of US–Africa relations, review the legacies of recent US presidents in shaping the continent’s prospects, and offer actionable strategies for African states in response to changing global political currents.

4.7.1  Africa’s developmental landscape: A brief overview

Africa faces numerous and interconnected challenges that hinder sustainable development and prosperity. These range from weak trade integration and security vulnerabilities to insufficient investment and a heavy reliance on external aid. The continent’s share of global trade remains strikingly low—between 2 to 3%—a statistic that underscores Africa's marginal position in the global economic order. Notably, African countries trade more extensively with external partners, such as the US and the European Union, than with one another. This fragmented intra-African trade landscape underlines the urgent need for deeper regional integration, a goal championed by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Investment is another critical lever for development. While public and private investment are key to growth, many African nations struggle to mobilise domestic resources. Inadequate capital circulation, poorly designed fiscal policies, and weak financial institutions often obstruct efforts to self-finance development. Although aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) serve as alternatives, they come with trade-offs, including policy conditionalities and dependence on external actors. The result is a developmental paradox: while Africa is rich in human and natural resources, it remains poor in terms of infrastructure, industrial output, and technological innovation.

Security and stability are equally pivotal. The Security Threat Index for 2024 highlights the diverse risk profiles across African countries. Mauritius, for example, ranks high in terms of reliability, while Libya remains near the bottom due to persistent conflict. Foreign investors heavily weigh these indicators, and nations perceived as unstable often struggle to attract meaningful investment. A stable political environment, therefore, is not just a domestic priority but a prerequisite for global engagement.

4.7.2  The US and Africa: A presidential legacy perspective

The United States has played a multifaceted role in Africa over the last three decades, with varying degrees of commitment, success, and controversy. The engagement has been shaped by the foreign policies of successive US presidents, each leaving a distinct mark on US–Africa relations.

4.7.2.1  Bill Clinton: Trade Not Aid

President Bill Clinton's administration (1993–2001) was characterised by a strategic shift from aid to trade. The hallmark of his Africa policy was the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), enacted in 2000. AGOA aimed to stimulate economic growth and reduce poverty by allowing nearly 30 African countries to export thousands of goods duty-free to the US market. The agreement reflected Clinton’s belief in free trade as a developmental tool.

Clinton’s commitment extended beyond trade. In response to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, he pledged $30 million to the Great Lakes Justice Initiative, underscoring the US role in post-conflict recovery. He also supported health campaigns in Nigeria and skill development in South Africa. In 1994, Clinton announced a $600 million aid package to South Africa, signifying strong diplomatic ties with the post-apartheid government under Nelson Mandela.

4.7.2.2  George W. Bush: Humanitarian Leadership

By a considerable margin, George W. Bush is the most respected US president in Africa, largely due to his administration's monumental health initiatives. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), launched in 2003, stands as one of the largest global health programmes in history. Covering 54 countries, including regions like Western Sahara, PEPFAR has saved an estimated 13 million lives by providing antiretroviral therapy to individuals living with HIV/AIDS.

Bush's approach to Africa was primarily humanitarian, driven by health diplomacy. His administration emphasised disease eradication, health infrastructure, and humanitarian assistance, which earned bipartisan support and widespread acclaim across the continent. However, the longevity and sustainability of such programmes remain under threat due to political shifts in the US.

4.7.2.3  Barack Obama: Symbolism and Youth Empowerment

As the first African-American president, Barack Obama’s election in 2008 sparked tremendous hope across Africa. Many believed that his heritage would translate into transformative policies for the continent. During his two terms (2009–2017), Obama made four visits to Africa, spanning seven countries. These visits reflected a recognition of the continent's growing strategic importance.

Obama’s signature initiatives included the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) and the Mandela Washington Fellowship. These programmes focused on empowering youth through leadership training, skills development, and professional networking. Collectively, they aimed to build a new generation of African leaders capable of navigating the complexities of governance and globalisation.

Despite his popularity, some critics argue that Obama’s policies did not dramatically shift the structural foundations of US–Africa relations. His administration's cautious foreign policy and focus on multilateralism sometimes lacked the bold interventions that marked his predecessor’s legacy.

4.7.2.4 Joe Biden: Multilateralism and Global Inclusion

President Joe Biden’s approach to Africa, since assuming office in 2021, has emphasised reintegration into global institutions and renewed multilateralism. One of his early acts was halting the US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO), reversing a decision made by the Trump administration. Additionally, Biden strongly advocated for the inclusion of the African Union (AU) in the G20—a milestone achieved in 2023.

Biden also supports Africa’s quest for greater representation in global governance. He has called for two permanent African seats on the UN Security Council and endorsed reforms that reflect the continent’s demographic and geopolitical weight. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reinforced this stance by describing Africa as a "major geopolitical force" shaping past, present, and future global dynamics.

4.7.2.5  Donald Trump: Disengagement and Strategic Competition

In stark contrast, President Donald Trump’s tenure (2017–2021) was marked by disengagement and scepticism toward multilateralism. His administration proposed cuts to USAID, a major conduit for development funding to Africa. Furthermore, Trump initiated the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and WHO—decisions that undermined collaborative global health and climate action.

Trump’s Africa policy was largely framed by strategic rivalry with China and Russia. He encouraged African states to align with the US in geopolitical contests rather than advancing a substantive developmental agenda. This transactional approach left many African leaders concerned about the future of US engagement and the erosion of long-standing aid programmes like PEPFAR.

4.7.3  Algeria’s position: Advocating continental representation

As a prominent voice in African diplomacy, Algeria has called for an end to the continent’s marginalisation in global affairs. Aligned with the African Union’s 2009 consensus and the Sirte Declaration, Algeria advocates for fair representation of Africa in the United Nations, especially the Security Council. It seeks a geopolitical realignment that reflects the continent’s growing influence and demographic significance.

Algeria’s position reflects broader African demands for equitable participation in global decision-making processes. As a member of the AU and other regional organisations, Algeria underscores the need for consensus, strategic unity, and institutional reforms.

4.7.4  Strategic imperatives: How Africa should respond

In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, resource scarcity, and geopolitical uncertainty, African countries must adopt a unified and strategic approach to international engagement. The threat of renewed isolationism, particularly under potential Trump 2.0 leadership, demands urgent introspection and policy recalibration.

First, African nations must strengthen regional bodies such as ECOWAS, SADC, and the East African Community (EAC). These organisations are essential for fostering collective security, economic integration, and political coordination. Revisiting their mandates, reforming their structures, and enhancing their capacities are crucial steps toward continental self-reliance.

Second, Africa should safeguard and diversify funding sources for critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure. With foreign aid under potential threat, domestic resource mobilisation and South-South cooperation must become central pillars of the development strategy.

Third, Africa must assert its sovereignty in global forums. This includes demanding equitable representation in institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and UN Security Council. It also involves forming strategic alliances that serve African interests, rather than merely aligning with external powers for short-term gains.

Finally, African leaders must demonstrate vision, courage, and accountability. The African Union Commission should be led by individuals with a deep commitment to the continent’s future and the capacity to navigate complex global dynamics. Leadership is the keystone upon which Africa’s resilience and progress will depend.

4.7.5  Conclusion

US–Africa relations have evolved over decades, shaped by the personalities and policies of successive American presidents and the shifting aspirations of African nations. While trade, aid, and diplomacy remain foundational, the current geopolitical environment requires Africa to take greater ownership of its destiny. Whether confronting future uncertainties under a disengaged US administration or seizing opportunities in a multipolar world, Africa must act with unity, purpose, and strategic foresight.

The continent’s future lies in its own hands—and with bold leadership, institutional reform, and collective resolve, Africa can shape a new era of global engagement that truly reflects its aspirations, dignity, and potential.

4.8  US–South Africa Relations in the Era of Trumpism - A Critical Reflection

Dr Sizo Nkala, Senior Researcher, Centre for Africa-China Studies, University of Johannesburg (South Africa)

The dynamics of US–South Africa relations have shifted significantly over the years, moving from a period of high diplomatic engagement and mutual optimism in the post-apartheid era to a phase of strain and uncertainty, particularly during the administration of President Donald J. Trump. In the presentation delivered by Sizo Nkala from the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of this evolving bilateral relationship was presented, grounded in the political ideology popularly known as the “Trump Doctrine” or “Trumpism.”

This report synthesises Nkala’s key insights into the nature of the Trump administration’s foreign policy approach and its implications for US–South Africa relations. It contextualises these developments within the broader trajectory of the bilateral relationship, examining how historical goodwill has deteriorated in the face of growing ideological divergence and the aggressive reassertion of American nationalism.

4.8.1  Understanding the Trump doctrine

Central to Nkala’s analysis is the contention that Donald Trump, despite perceptions to the contrary, possesses a coherent—if unpopular—ideological framework guiding his political and diplomatic conduct. Contrary to critics who view Trump’s decisions as erratic or uninformed, Nkala argues that there is method and consistency to Trump’s approach, particularly in terms of foreign policy. Termed the “Trump Doctrine,” this framework is grievance-based and deeply rooted in economic nationalism, populism, and unilateralism.

The Trump Doctrine, according to Nkala, is premised on several interrelated grievances:

• Deindustrialisation of the American economy: Trump has long expressed concern over the offshoring of American manufacturing jobs, particularly to countries like China and South Africa. This issue resonates with his core support base—the white, male working-class population—who have been disproportionately affected by industrial decline.

• Unprofitable international alliances and organisations: Trump has demonstrated a clear aversion to multilateral commitments, criticising the United Nations, NATO, and other institutions as being burdensome to American taxpayers. He believes that the US gains little from these relationships, and he has acted to withdraw from or defund them.

• Exploitative trade deals: Trump frequently decries trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA (now replaced by USMCA) as detrimental to American interests. Although he rarely mentions the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), Nkala posits that such arrangements are also viewed unfavourably within Trump’s ideological orbit.

• Immigration and border security: Another pillar of the Trump Doctrine is the scapegoating of immigrants. Trump has framed immigration as a threat to American security and prosperity, using inflammatory rhetoric and implementing stringent deportation policies.

• Opposition to military interventions: Trump’s isolationist tendencies are reflected in his disdain for prolonged foreign military entanglements. He has pledged to end “unwinnable wars” and has shown little interest in deploying peacekeepers, particularly in Africa.

These grievances are addressed through a set of “corrective measures,” including the imposition of tariffs, withdrawal from multilateral agreements (such as the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and UNESCO), and a transactional approach to diplomacy that prioritises American economic and political supremacy.

4.8.2  Personality and policy: The Trump effect

Nkala emphasises the importance of Trump’s personality in shaping US foreign policy. Traits such as narcissism, spitefulness, and confrontational behaviour are not just personal quirks but central to understanding his political methodology. Trump’s tendency to act in a “lose-lose” manner—imposing tariffs that hurt both allies and domestic constituencies, for example—is indicative of his inclination to prioritise political messaging and symbolic victories over practical outcomes.

This personality-driven approach contributes to the volatility of US foreign relations and has had a profound impact on South Africa, where long-standing diplomatic norms have been disrupted. Trump’s confrontational stance often results in symbolic acts of hostility—such as the dismissal of ambassadors or the withdrawal of aid—that signal a broader ideological departure from previous administrations.

4.8.3  From Mandela to mistrust: The evolution of US–South Africa relations

The presentation also offered a valuable historical perspective on US–South Africa relations. In the immediate aftermath of apartheid, South Africa was widely celebrated as a beacon of democracy and reconciliation. Nelson Mandela’s presidency inspired global admiration, and the United States quickly moved to solidify ties with the new democratic government.

In 1994, the Clinton administration extended a $600 million package to support South African development. That same year, the “Investing in People” Conference was held in the US to mobilise American investment in South Africa, and a US–South Africa Business Development Committee was established. A year later, the Binational Commission, co-chaired by then-Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and US Vice President Al Gore, institutionalised high-level diplomatic engagement between the two nations.

This era was characterised by optimism, mutual respect, and frequent communication. South Africa was included in the US Market Initiative in 1995, aimed at promoting it as a key investment destination. These efforts underscored Washington’s view of South Africa as a strategic partner and model of democratic transition in a region often marked by instability.

4.8.4  A rapid decline

• Fast forward to the Trump era, and the relationship appears to have deteriorated significantly. According to Nkala, several recent developments illustrate this decline:

• The abrupt dismissal of the South African ambassador to the US.

• The permanent suspension of US aid programmes in South Africa as of February 2025.

• Trump’s inflammatory invitation to members of the Afrikaner community to flee “brutalities” allegedly perpetrated by the South African government.

• US accusations of human rights violations in South Africa.

These events reflect a breakdown in diplomatic protocol and mutual trust. The absence of ambassadors in both Washington and Pretoria—contrasted with the twice-yearly meetings between high-ranking officials in the 1990s—is emblematic of this shift. The mutual commitment that once defined the relationship has been replaced by suspicion, ideological divergence, and policy disconnect.

Nkala attributes this regression primarily to the Trump Doctrine, which views international engagement through the lens of grievance and zero-sum competition. South Africa, once seen as a promising partner, is now perceived as a drain on American resources and a symbol of the very globalism that Trump seeks to dismantle.

4.8.5  Beyond Trump: A structural shift?

One of the most important arguments presented in the paper is that Trumpism may outlast Donald Trump himself. While Trump is its most visible and vocal proponent, the ideological tenets of Trumpism—economic nationalism, unilateralism, and opposition to liberal internationalism—have gained traction within segments of the American political establishment. As such, the current trajectory of US–South Africa relations may not simply be reversed with a change in leadership.

This insight invites scholars and policymakers in Africa to rethink their engagement strategies with the United States. Rather than assuming that a post-Trump administration will automatically revert to past norms, African governments must prepare for a long-term realignment of American foreign policy interests. This includes recognising the growing domestic pressures within the US that shape its external conduct, from protectionism to isolationism.

4.8.6  Conclusion

The transformation of US–South Africa relations in the age of Trumpism is both stark and instructive. What began as a hopeful partnership anchored in shared democratic values has become a tense and fragile relationship defined by suspicion and policy divergence. Through a detailed exploration of the Trump Doctrine, Sizo Nkala’s presentation shed light on the ideological undercurrents shaping this shift and offers a cautionary perspective on the future of African engagement with the United States.

By understanding Trumpism not as a temporary anomaly but as a potentially enduring political ideology, scholars and policymakers are better positioned to navigate the evolving geopolitical landscape. South Africa, and the African continent more broadly, must engage with the United States with a clear-eyed recognition of the new terms of engagement—terms defined less by shared ideals and more by transactional logic and nationalist sentiment.

In the end, the challenge lies in crafting an African foreign policy that is resilient, strategic, and forward-looking—one that anticipates not just who is in the White House, but what kind of America the world must deal with in the years to come.

4.9  US–Africa Relations in the Era of ‘America First’ - A Kenyan Perspective

Brigadier (Rtd) Dr Robert Kabage, Executive Director, Mashariki Research and Policy Centre (Kenya)

The dynamics of US–Africa relations have undergone substantial transformation in recent years, particularly under the influence of the "America First" policy doctrine introduced by the Trump administration. This unilateral and nationalist policy framework prioritises US interests above multilateral commitments and global partnerships, thereby presenting both challenges and opportunities for African states. In his presentation,  Brigadier (Retired) Dr. Kabage, CEO of Mashariki Research and Policy Centre, examined the implications of this policy for Africa, with a specific emphasis on Kenya’s strategic responses.

4.9.1  Background and institutional context

The Mashariki Research and Policy Centre, headquartered in Nairobi, is a leading think tank that provides policy-oriented analysis on matters of security, geopolitics, economic growth, and sustainability. Established in February of the previous year, the centre celebrated its first anniversary with the publication of the Mashariki Security Journal. This publication underscores the centre's commitment to fostering a knowledge platform for addressing peace and security challenges across Eastern Africa.

The institution plays a crucial role in offering foresight and research-driven solutions to the region's most pressing issues, from political instability to identity-based conflicts and environmental degradation.

In light of the shifting geopolitical landscape, Dr. Kabage’s presentation addressed the critical policy and governance priorities necessary to reconfigure and strengthen US-Africa relations, grounded in a realist theoretical framework that emphasises national interest and strategic autonomy.

4.9.2  Theoretical framework: Realism in international relations

The analysis rests on the realist theory of international relations, which views states as rational actors driven by the pursuit of power and national interests. From this perspective, the "America First" policy reflects a logical extension of realism, where the US seeks to consolidate its geopolitical advantage through unilateral action and selective alliances. Realism asserts that in an anarchic international system, survival, economic power, and military strength are paramount. This theoretical lens helps contextualise recent shifts in US foreign policy and their ramifications for African states.

4.9.3  Key findings from the study

4.9.3.1  Historical context of US-Africa relations

Historically, US engagement with Africa—from the colonial and slave trade eras to the Cold War and beyond—has been driven by strategic self-interest. The Trump administration's emphasis on "America First" has merely made these interests more explicit, reshaping existing agreements and partnerships. This reality calls for a more honest and pragmatic reassessment of what African states expect and require from international partnerships moving forward.

4.9.3.2  Impact on peace and security cooperation

The traditional US role within NATO and its strategic partnerships with non-NATO allies, such as Kenya, has been affected. Under the current policy, NATO allies are expected to increase their military expenditures and develop independent defence capacities. Kenya, designated a major non-NATO ally, previously benefitted from US defence cooperation, particularly in anti-terrorism operations. However, this relationship is now under strain. The freezing of funding for Kenya’s leadership of a peacekeeping mission in Haiti exemplifies the trend towards decreased US international military engagement. This development underscores the need for Kenya and its regional partners to invest in indigenous peacekeeping mechanisms and self-funded security strategies.

4.9.3.3  Foreign aid and development assistance

A significant consequence of the "America First" doctrine is the withdrawal or reduction of US foreign aid. The freezing of USAID funding has had profound effects in Kenya, especially in the health sector. Programmes addressing HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria face severe highlights the risks of dependence on external donors for essential healthcare services. Such cuts also affect agricultural development, emergency relief, and small enterprise growth, thereby hampering overall national development.

4.9.3.4  Withdrawal from global health institutions

The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) signals its intent to disengage from global health governance. This deprives African countries of vital technical support and capacity building. For Kenya, this necessitates urgent reforms in domestic healthcare financing and infrastructure development to maintain progress toward universal health coverage. The public health threat is compounded by emerging global pandemics, which require coordinated international responses - responses now hindered by US disengagement.

4.9.3.5  Climate Action and Environmental Sustainability

The US exit from the Paris Agreement and its reduction of climate funding have negatively affected African nations. Kenya, which derives over 80% of its energy from renewable sources, has been particularly impacted. Climate action is central to Kenya's development strategy, offering benefits such as food security, disaster resilience, and sustainable agriculture. The reduction in US climate finance endangers these gains. Furthermore, the loss of US advocacy on global climate platforms weakens the ability of African nations to push for adaptation financing and technology transfers needed to combat the growing threat of climate change.

4.9.3.6 Gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)

The current US policy framework marginalises global DEI efforts. Cuts to USAID funding have undermined programmes promoting women’s health, education, and economic empowerment. Kenya, in the context of recent legal advancements for minority rights, faces the challenge of internally sustaining inclusion initiatives without external support. The risk is that marginalised populations, including the LGBTQ+ community, may experience setbacks in legal and social recognition due to the withdrawal of external funding and advocacy that previously supported these rights.

4.9.4  Immigration and labour mobility

US immigration restrictions pose barriers to African professionals and students seeking opportunities in America. With migration avenues tightening, countries like Kenya must reconsider their economic models that rely on labour exports. Emphasis must shift towards domestic job creation, economic diversification, and investment promotion to absorb the national workforce. African governments will need to introduce skills development, technical training, and enterprise financing initiatives to support youth employment and reduce dependency on foreign labour markets.

4.9.5  Strategic recommendations

In response to these policy shifts, Dr  Kabage proposes several strategic recommendations aimed at recalibrating Kenya’s - and by extension Africa’s - foreign and domestic policy posture.

4.9.5.1  Diversify development funding

African nations should reduce overreliance on Western aid by seeking alternative partnerships with emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Strengthening regional institutions like the African Development Bank is also critical for financial self-reliance. These partnerships must be structured around mutual benefit and equitable terms to ensure long-term sustainability.

4.9.5.2  Enhance domestic healthcare financing

To counterbalance foreign aid reductions, governments must increase allocations for health in national budgets. Public-private partnerships should be expanded to boost infrastructure and service delivery, ensuring continuity of critical health services. Local pharmaceutical production and regional procurement frameworks can also enhance medical resilience.

4.9.5.3    Community-driven climate solutions

Kenya and other African states must adopt grassroots approaches to climate adaptation and mitigation. Local investment in renewable energy, water management, and sustainable agriculture will foster environmental resilience and economic independence. Community engagement in climate governance will also improve policy relevance and implementation efficiency.

4.9.5.4  Support local industries and entrepreneurship

Economic sovereignty requires fostering local enterprise. Policymakers should develop frameworks that incentivise small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), encourage innovation, and promote industrialisation to reduce import dependency and create employment. Entrepreneurial hubs, business incubators, and skills training centres should be expanded to catalyse local value chains.

4.9.5.5  Boost intra-African trade and regional integration

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a viable pathway to strengthen intra-African commerce. Harmonising trade policies, eliminating tariffs, and investing in regional infrastructure will enhance economic resilience and reduce external vulnerabilities. Kenya, for example, stands to gain significantly by leveraging AfCFTA to access larger markets, stimulate industrialisation, and foster regional value chains. This integration not only boosts economic diversification but also fosters political unity and continental self-reliance.

4.9.5.6  Expand diplomatic and economic alliances

Beyond traditional partnerships with Western countries, African nations must engage strategically with rising global powers and alternative trading blocs. Dr Kabage pointed to Kenya’s Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union as a viable model amidst uncertainty over the future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Furthermore, proactive engagement with BRICS nations could open new avenues for trade, investment, technology transfer, and diplomatic influence. These relationships should be pursued with a clear-eyed assessment of national interests to avoid replicating exploitative dependencies.

4.9.5.7  Improve resource governance

One of the most pressing internal challenges across African states remains poor resource management. According to Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary for Treasury, simply halving corruption levels could enable the country to service all its public debt obligations. This astonishing insight underscores the critical importance of enforcing transparent procurement systems, strengthening public financial management, and holding officials accountable. Proper resource allocation and reduced wastage would dramatically reduce reliance on foreign aid and debt, enabling countries to fund development goals independently.

4.9.6  Opportunities amidst the challenge

While the "America First" doctrine has introduced considerable strain into US-Africa relations, it also creates opportunities for African countries to reassess and redefine their positions within the global order. Reduced aid and disengagement from multilateralism should not merely be viewed as abandonment, but as a wake-up call for the continent to embrace strategic autonomy.

This shift encourages Africa to take greater ownership of its development agenda. It prompts policymakers to invest in local innovation, adopt resilient health and education systems, modernise agriculture, and harness digital technologies. In the long run, the lessons drawn from navigating external policy shocks can cultivate stronger governance institutions, broaden economic opportunities, and enhance continental unity.

4.9.7  Conclusion

The “America First” policy signals a fundamental recalibration of US foreign engagement that has cascading effects on Africa. While this repositioning presents immediate challenges - such as reduced foreign aid, disrupted security arrangements, and limited migration – it also underscores the necessity for African nations to pursue economic and strategic independence.

Kenya's experience, as articulated by Dr Kabage, provides a valuable lens through which these dynamics can be understood and addressed. Rather than lamenting the loss of traditional aid structures, Kenya and other African countries must pivot toward new partnerships, strengthen intra-African collaboration, and reform internal governance.

By embracing a proactive and pragmatic foreign policy, investing in local capabilities, and promoting inclusive development, Africa can transform external uncertainties into opportunities for self-empowerment. The path forward will require bold leadership, collaborative continental action, and an unwavering commitment to self-determined growth.