5  SESSION 2: U.S. – AFRICA RELATIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES

5.1  Understanding African Fragility Through U.S. National Security Perspectives

Dr Dylan Craig, Associate Professor, Department of Security Studies, U.S. National War College (United States of America)

This report analyses the evolving conception of African fragility from the vantage point of U.S. national security and foreign policy. Based on the reflective and insider perspective from a Dr Dylan Craig who teaches at the U.S. National War College. It offers rare insight into the priorities, internal dynamics, and persistent tensions within American policy toward Africa.

This report is structured into three main sections. First, it outlines the traditional U.S. conception of African fragility as rooted in geopolitical alignment. Second, it presents a detailed examination of the current administration’s reconfiguration of fragility around geoeconomic priorities. Finally, it discusses the institutional continuity that tempers the impact of these shifts and maintains certain persistent logics in U.S.-Africa relations.

5.1.1  Historical conceptions of African fragility: Geopolitical imperatives

From the early 2000s, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the onset of the global war on terror, the U.S. regarded African fragility largely through a geopolitical lens. Fragile states were not necessarily the poorest, most corrupt, or most violent - but those whose political alignments with the U.S. were in flux or at risk. Stability, from a U.S. perspective, was defined less by the well-being of a population and more by the consistency of a regime’s alignment with American strategic objectives.

During this era, the American objective in Africa was to secure allies in the fight against terrorism and to counter the growing influence of rivals like China and Russia. Thus, support was often extended to governments willing to cooperate on counterterrorism, intelligence sharing, or U.S. military operations - regardless of domestic governance standards. Violent extremist organisations (VEOs) were treated as threats not purely because of their violent methods or ideologies, but because they jeopardised regimes aligned with U.S. interests.

This approach led to a form of instrumentalism in U.S. policy: domestic African issues such as poverty, corruption, and lack of rule of law were addressed not on humanitarian or democratic grounds, but because they undermined the durability of U.S.-friendly regimes. For example, corruption was a concern to the extent that it enabled Chinese-style “debt trap diplomacy,” making U.S. engagement comparatively less competitive.

Initiatives like AGOA were emblematic of this geopolitical logic - providing preferential trade access in exchange for alignment with liberal democratic norms and U.S. interests. Aid, military assistance, and diplomatic attention flowed disproportionately to countries that played by these rules, creating a seller’s market for geopolitical loyalty. Countries like Djibouti, Malawi, and Eswatini leveraged their alignment for significant benefits, showing that even small states could wield disproportionate influence under the geopolitical fragility framework.

5.1.2  The Shift to geoeconomic fragility: A new paradigm

The current U.S. administration marks a clear departure from the above approach. African fragility is no longer chiefly assessed through the lens of political alignment or multilateral diplomacy. Instead, a geoeconomic framing now dominates Washington’s thinking. This paradigm evaluates African states based on their economic utility to global supply chains, their integration with American and allied markets, and their potential to support U.S. economic competitiveness.

Critical minerals, rare earths, energy resources, and logistical positioning are now the primary considerations. Fragility, under this new framework, arises not from ideological deviance or geopolitical wavering, but from being economically irrelevant. States that fail to link meaningfully with global trade and investment flows are increasingly viewed as dispensable.

This transformation significantly affects U.S. engagement. Military aid, diplomatic attention, and development assistance are increasingly reserved for regions with geoeconomic salience. This redefinition of priorities poses new risks for countries that were previously considered important due to strategic alignments, but which now fall outside key economic circuits.

The consequences of this shift are profound. A clear example discussed by Dr Craig is the case of Malawi’s mango exports. Despite the high quality and market potential of Malawian produce, limited reciprocal trade opportunities make sustained engagement unattractive for U.S. private sector actors. Unlike Chinese or Gulf state enterprises - backed by state-led strategic objectives - U.S. businesses demand profitability and reciprocal trade. This illustrates the fundamental structural limitations of U.S. capitalism when confronted with asymmetrical trade relationships, which are common in African economies.

As a result, future engagement may depend not on bilateral U.S.-Africa mechanisms, but on Africa’s capacity to build trade networks with intermediary powers such as Türkiye, Indonesia, and Gulf states. Infrastructure projects - like Turkish-funded port development in The Gambia - are shaping new trade corridors that may eventually link Africa with U.S. markets, indirectly sustaining American commercial interests without direct government intervention. This is a more palatable model to administrations sceptical of foreign aid and direct funding mechanisms.

Nevertheless, some American institutions remain active. The Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Development Finance Corporation continue to operate, often with less scrutiny than USAID, which has suffered significant funding cuts. These institutions are being retooled to support private-sector-led growth in strategic sectors like energy, digital infrastructure, and transportation. The continuation of these programmes signals that the U.S. is not abandoning Africa - it is merely reconfiguring its tools in line with market-driven logic.

5.1.3 Institutional inertia and the role of security bureaucracies

Despite changes in presidential administrations and policy rhetoric, U.S. engagement with Africa remains deeply shaped by long-standing institutional cultures and professional networks. Dr Craig draws attention to the enduring role of national security professionals educated at institutions like the National War College, where future military and civilian leaders are trained together over the course of a year.

These individuals, shaped by their formative years during the global war on terror, still carry with them a mindset attuned to the threats of violent extremism, multilateral engagement, and traditional security partnerships. Even if official policy shifts away from such concerns, the bureaucracy - composed of individuals steeped in earlier doctrines - often continues to act on prior assumptions.

A telling anecdote involves a student and pilot of a V-22 Osprey aircraft, who described his view of Africa in terms of “runways”- that is, regions where he could feasibly operate. This illustrates a physical, operational logic that constrains U.S. engagement. If American military platforms cannot reach a region, or if there is no logistical infrastructure to support activity there, that area effectively disappears from the operational map. Thus, U.S. foreign policy is not only shaped by values and interests but also by pragmatic constraints of access, basing, and overflight.

The role of international fellows—military officers and civil servants from allied nations—at the National War College also reinforces personal diplomacy. Relationships formed during this training often become valuable informal channels through which future collaboration is brokered. This "rolodex diplomacy" ensures that even in the absence of formal treaties or direct engagement, institutional memory and personal trust can facilitate cooperation.

Moreover, many of these individuals remain in service for decades, long outlasting any given administration. As such, policy ideas introduced during their formative training may shape practice for years to come, regardless of political turnover in Washington. This underscores the importance of engaging not just with top-level political appointees, but with the enduring strata of career professionals who shape, implement, and sustain U.S. foreign policy.

5.1.4  Conclusion

The U.S. conception of African fragility has evolved from a focus on political alignment and ideological loyalty to a more transactional, market-driven assessment of economic relevance. This geoeconomic turn reflects broader shifts in global power competition, particularly with China, and a domestic political environment in the U.S. that is increasingly sceptical of foreign aid and multilateral commitments.

Yet, this shift is not total. The legacy of past policies, institutional inertia, and the enduring influence of professional security networks continue to shape how the U.S. engages with Africa. While political rhetoric may emphasise economic interests, the individuals implementing policy are often guided by strategic, humanitarian, or relational concerns that were central to previous eras.

For African states, this dual reality presents both opportunities and challenges. Those with geoeconomic relevance - through natural resources, trade corridors, or market size - are well positioned to maintain or expand U.S. engagement. However, countries without such assets may find themselves increasingly marginalised unless they can strategically align with intermediary partners or develop economic niches that appeal to U.S. private sector interests.

Simultaneously, African governments must continue to invest in long-term institutional relationships, ensuring their representatives are embedded in the professional networks that shape U.S. policy. Military-to-military cooperation, educational exchanges, and second-track diplomacy offer durable pathways for influence that transcend political cycles.

In an era where Africa risks being treated merely as a site of extraction or ignored altogether if economically irrelevant, the imperative is clear: African nations must build economic resilience, strengthen strategic partnerships, and engage proactively with both the visible and invisible hands of U.S. foreign policy.

5.2  U.S. - Africa Relations in a Time of Geopolitical Transition - Policy, Challenges, and the South African Case

Ambassador Michelle Gavin, Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (United States of America)

The United States' relationship with Africa has historically rested on a foundation of bipartisan consensus, pragmatic diplomacy, and mutual interests. However, recent political dynamics, particularly under the Trump administration, have disrupted this continuity, replacing long-held foreign policy traditions with a more transactional and unpredictable approach. Ambassador Gavin explores the evolution of U.S.-Africa policy, the structural challenges in its implementation, and the implications of this shift for the U.S.-South Africa relationship in particular.

5.2.1  A legacy of engagement and its erosion

For decades following the Cold War, U.S.-Africa relations operated within a relatively stable bipartisan framework. The American foreign policy establishment, irrespective of the administration in power, consistently identified its strategic interests in Africa across domains such as peace and security, trade and investment, democracy promotion, and joint efforts to tackle global challenges like climate change and pandemics. Initiatives such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) under President Clinton, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under President George W. Bush, and Power Africa and Feed the Future under President Obama, exemplified this approach.

Yet, despite their ambition, these programmes yielded mixed results. AGOA, intended to drive trade through duty-free access to U.S. markets, saw limited success in generating meaningful investment or transforming economic landscapes in Africa. Similarly, while PEPFAR achieved monumental success in combating HIV/AIDS and saving millions of lives, it monopolised an overwhelming share of U.S. foreign assistance to Africa - at times consuming up to 80% of funds - thereby limiting flexibility to address other African priorities such as job creation and governance reform.

This expansive and idealistic policy landscape began to fray in recent years. The Trump administration’s foreign policy marked a departure from strategic engagement to one marked by inward-looking nationalism and transactional diplomacy. The collapse of bipartisan consensus, coupled with a broader identity crisis within U.S. political institutions, now casts doubt over the reliability and sustainability of American engagement with Africa.

5.2.2  Structural and bureaucratic constraints

The implementation of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa has always been complicated by structural and institutional limitations. A relatively small and under-resourced Africa policy community in Washington has contributed to widespread knowledge gaps, especially among senior decision-makers tasked with global responsibilities. These gaps manifest in discomfort or reluctance when it comes to serious engagement with African partners.

Moreover, the U.S. legislative system imposes additional constraints. All major foreign assistance initiatives, from PEPFAR to Power Africa, require congressional appropriation and authorisation. Congressional oversight, driven by taxpayer accountability and domestic scrutiny, can frustrate and complicate foreign partnerships. For example, reports of human rights abuses by African governments receiving U.S. aid can prompt congressional backlash and halt programmes, regardless of the broader strategic rationale behind them.

The U.S. private sector, another potential pillar of engagement, remains largely disconnected from government foreign policy. Unlike in China, where the state and private actors often operate in concert, U.S. businesses act independently. Their investment decisions are dictated by profit motives and a rudimentary understanding of Africa’s diverse economic landscapes, often failing to differentiate between vastly different markets such as Ethiopia and Zambia.

Additionally, outdated bureaucratic configurations further impede coherent engagement. The State Department's Africa Bureau excludes North African nations like Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, which fall under the Near Eastern Bureau. This arbitrary division reflects legacy Cold War frameworks rather than present-day geopolitical or cultural realities.

5.2.3  The role of Congress and the decline of oversight

Historically, Congress played a critical role as a counterbalance to the executive branch in foreign policy. A defining example is the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, passed in defiance of President Reagan’s veto, showcasing the power of civil society mobilisation and legislative will. However, this tradition of congressional independence and oversight is diminishing.

The Trump administration has altered this dynamic significantly. Whereas earlier congressional action often reinstated foreign assistance funds cut by the executive, today's Congress is less assertive and increasingly partisan. The erosion of consensus around U.S. national interests and the rise of short-term political thinking threaten the consistency and credibility of American foreign policy. This institutional drift undermines long-term planning and deprives African partners of a reliable interlocutor.

5.2.4  The geopolitical landscape: Multipolarity and perception

As the U.S. retreats from its historical leadership role, the world moves steadily toward multipolarity. The Trump administration’s disdain for multilateralism, combined with global actors such as Russia and China asserting themselves more forcefully, reshapes the rules of engagement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s infrastructure diplomacy through the Belt and Road Initiative, and Gulf state investments in African states all point to a shifting balance of power.

In this environment, perceptions of the U.S. as a self-interested, unreliable partner deepen. When African states experience delayed debt relief, higher costs for capital, and marginalisation in global crises like COVID-19 or climate change, it reinforces the narrative that global systems are intentionally skewed against them. Even when the U.S. is not the principal actor responsible for these delays, its dominant role in global institutions makes it the face of perceived injustice.

This creates fertile ground for U.S. adversaries to gain traction by exploiting dissatisfaction and amplifying grievances. The structural inequalities in the global system, while genuine, become political tools in the broader contest for influence in Africa.

5.2.5  The collapse of norms and rise of transactionalism

The Trump administration's foreign policy is characterised by a strong aversion to norms, multilateral frameworks, and historical accountability. It eschews long-standing U.S. commitments to democracy, anti-corruption, and institutional reform. Announcements that key enforcement mechanisms like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) will no longer be actively enforced during a review period further underscore this shift.

Simultaneously, prominent unelected figures such as Elon Musk play increasingly visible roles in shaping international relationships, blurring the lines between national and private interests. Deals involving figures like Musk, who is active in both U.S. defence and business interests in Africa, reinforce perceptions of U.S. opportunism rather than principled engagement.

The administration’s resistance to acknowledging historical injustices - evident in its attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and affirmative action - extends to international affairs. U.S. policy no longer considers past exploitations or legacies of colonialism as relevant to current policy design, even as African partners continue to invoke them in diplomatic dialogues.

5.2.6  South Africa: From kinship to estrangement

The U.S.-South Africa relationship, once considered a cornerstone of post-Cold War cooperation, is emblematic of the broader drift in American foreign policy. Following South Africa’s liberation, the U.S. positioned itself as an enthusiastic supporter of the country’s democratic transition. It was seen as a validation of the American experiment in democracy and multiracial governance.

But over time, divergent perspectives and unmet expectations eroded this kinship. From South Africa’s vantage point, the U.S. has often been hypocritical, preaching democracy abroad while ignoring repression among its allies. Meanwhile, Americans increasingly view South Africa’s positions on global issues, such as its non-aligned stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, as evidence of anti-Western alignment.

BRICS - a bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt Iran and the United Arab Emirates - has become a particular point of tension. American scepticism of BRICS stems from its perception as an anti-Western alliance, despite its member states’ diverse ideologies. Growing frustration on both sides has replaced earlier enthusiasm, and recent developments under the Trump administration risk further deterioration.

5.2.7  The danger of demonisation and misinformation

A dangerous aspect of current U.S. discourse is the proliferation of misinformation and the politicisation of media. Allegations of a "genocide" against white farmers in South Africa, though widely debunked by credible sources, continue to circulate in certain corners of the American media landscape. In an era where media consumption is highly siloed and politicised, disinformation can fuel foreign policy decisions divorced from facts.

This poses a direct risk to countries like South Africa. A Trump administration seeking to “make an example” of South Africa for political gains could act based on misinformation, with serious diplomatic consequences. The erosion of trust in facts and institutions within the U.S. further compounds this challenge, leaving African partners uncertain about who or what speaks for America.

5.2.8  Looking ahead: Civil society and the hope for renewal

Despite the bleak outlook under current leadership, civil society remains a resilient force in U.S. foreign engagement. During apartheid, American civil society played a vital role in mobilising support for South African liberation. That potential still exists today, even if it is not being harnessed effectively at present.

The possibility of congressional resurgence or civil society reactivation offers a glimmer of hope. Yet, the path ahead remains uncertain. The United States is undergoing a profound political and institutional crisis. Its democratic institutions, once considered bedrocks of stability, are under strain. The international implications of this crisis are significant, particularly for U.S. partnerships with countries that have historically looked to it as a model or ally.

5.2.9  Conclusion

U.S.-Africa policy is at a crossroads. The long-standing bipartisan consensus has eroded, and structural, institutional, and ideological constraints are reshaping the contours of engagement. In an increasingly multipolar world, African states are recalibrating their partnerships and expectations. South Africa, once a symbol of democratic hope and shared values, now finds itself on tenuous footing with a U.S. administration that views the world through a transactional, nationalist lens.

What lies ahead depends not only on electoral outcomes in the United States but also on how African states assert their agency, diversify their partnerships, and navigate a world where American reliability can no longer be taken for granted.

5.3  The Changing US-Africa Policy Dynamic - Context, Challenges, and Opportunities

Dr Anne Griffin, Independent US-Africa policy expert associated with the Centre for American Progress (United States of America)

Dr Anne Griffin - an independent U.S. expert affiliated with the Centre for American Progress - offered a deeply reflective and context-rich analysis of the evolving policy dynamics between the United States and Africa. Framed by personal experiences in activism, scholarship, and policy, her presentation unpacked the seismic changes in U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration, dissected the implications for Africa and the diaspora, and emphasised the role of civil society, research, and advocacy in navigating this historic moment.

The report is divided into five core sections: (1) Contextual background and personal journey, (2) Historical and contemporary policy shifts, (3) Characteristics of the new policy paradigm, (4) Challenges to US-Africa relations, and (5) Recommendations and advocacy pathways. The insights offered serve as both critique and call to action, especially for civil society actors, researchers, and diasporic networks engaged in redefining U.S.-Africa relations.

5.3.1  Contextual background and personal journey

Dr Griffin opened her presentation by situating her perspectives within the context of her personal and professional journey. Raised in New Jersey by a mother who was both a professor and activist during the Civil Rights Movement, Griffin was instilled early with a strong sense of advocacy and social justice. Her upbringing involved active participation in protests and community activism from as young as seven years old. This foundation in activism - deeply influenced by cultural nationalism and Pan-Africanist thinking - shaped her lifelong commitment to policy and advocacy.

Her academic trajectory reflects a deep engagement with African affairs: an undergraduate major in Pan-Africanism, a graduate degree comparing the anti-apartheid and Civil Rights Movements, and doctoral research on student transformation post-apartheid. Griffin’s 22-year residence in Africa further solidified her perspective, grounding her scholarship in direct experience with community-led development, capacity building, and leadership training. Her multifaceted career - as a policy analyst on Capitol Hill, a think tank researcher, and a diaspora advocate - underpins the analytical lens she brought to the topic.

This background illustrates how personal history and professional engagement intertwine to produce a nuanced understanding of policy dynamics. It also affirms the importance of lived experience in interpreting geopolitical shifts. Griffin’s story underscores the powerful role of women leaders and activists in shaping both historical and contemporary advocacy for African and diasporic issues.

5.3.2  Historical and contemporary policy shifts

Dr. Griffin's second focus was to interpret the present US-Africa policy dynamic in light of historical trends. Acknowledging previous speakers’ contributions to the historical overview of US-African relations, she instead concentrated on interpreting the policy shifts seen in recent years - especially those under the Trump administration.

She characterised the recent changes as “seismic,” describing a political climate of “shock and awe” in which longstanding policies and norms were dismantled swiftly and unilaterally.

Among the key developments she identified were:

• Reductions in foreign aid and the sidelining of USAID.

• The uncertain future of PEPFAR, a hallmark of US-Africa health diplomacy.

• Escalating deportation plans for undocumented immigrants, which disproportionately affect Africans in the diaspora.

• A retreat from multilateral climate agreements, which threatens cooperative efforts around the Just Energy Transition.

These shifts, Griffin argued, signify a reorientation of U.S. foreign policy towards a doctrine of “America First,” where domestic security and profitability override principles such as solidarity, equality, and sustainability. The Trump administration’s approach, she explained, marks a fundamental rupture with decades of bipartisan commitment to moral leadership and global cooperation.

Griffin’s reference to back-channel diplomacy, which she practiced while at a progressive think tank in Washington, DC, underscores the complexity of shaping policy outcomes in an era where conventional diplomatic pathways are often bypassed. Furthermore, she urged the audience to view these changes not just as administrative adjustments, but as a profound redefinition of how the U.S. sees its role in the world.

5.3.3  Characteristics of the new policy paradigm

Dr Griffin delved deeply into what she identified as the key features of the new U.S. policy paradigm toward Africa and the broader world. These features illustrate a significant departure from value-based foreign policy to a model defined by transactionalism and raw power.

5.3.3.1  Strategic targeting of USAID

One of the first casualties of the new policy orientation was USAID. Griffin noted that the choice was not accidental; the Trump administration likely targeted foreign aid because of public misconceptions about its size and efficacy. In the popular American imagination, foreign aid is often exaggerated in scope and impact. By cutting USAID, the administration could demonstrate decisive action with minimal political backlash, especially in a context where many Americans feel alienated from the needs of “those over there.”

She highlighted how this misinformed perception reveals a deeper problem: the lack of connection felt by many Americans to global struggles. She positioned the diaspora as a potential corrective to this detachment, capable of injecting urgency and relational understanding into foreign policy debates. Without strong educational efforts and narrative correction, the reduction in foreign aid risks being normalised, thereby undermining decades of development cooperation.

5.3.3.2  America First: Security and profit over principle

Griffin painted the new doctrine as one that unapologetically prioritises American interests, especially security and economic gain. This emphasis marks a shift from policy shaped by ethical commitments—such as democracy promotion or human rights—to one driven by nationalism and isolationism.

The Trump administration, in Griffin’s words, sought to exhibit “power over principle.” She referenced Senator Marco Rubio’s boycott of the G20 summit hosted by an African country on grounds that the event promoted values like solidarity and sustainability - values now at odds with U.S. policy priorities. This rejection of multilateralism and cooperative diplomacy raises critical questions about the role of the United States in shaping a just international order. It also signals to African nations that diplomatic respect and engagement can no longer be assumed, but must be actively negotiated.

5.3.3.3  Disruption of traditional alliances

The new policy approach also involves a retreat from traditional alliances and a willingness to act unilaterally. For decades, both progressives and conservatives in the U.S. have debated the need to reimagine global financial and governance structures. However, Griffin argued that the Trump administration’s disruptive approach destroyed existing structures without offering credible replacements.

Now, with traditional systems dismantled, the central challenge is determining what will replace them. Who will define the new architecture? And on what principles will it be based? She noted the growing vacuum in leadership as an opportunity for African nations and diasporic stakeholders to exert influence and redefine the narrative.

5.3.4  Challenges to US-Africa relations

The presentation identified several challenges that impede a constructive US-Africa relationship in the current context.

5.3.4.1  Erosion of multilateral trust

As the U.S. distances itself from global agreements and institutions, African countries face uncertainty about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner. Abrupt changes—such as PEPFAR’s uncertain status—undermine years of trust-building and programmatic collaboration. A failure to provide consistent support for development and climate resilience weakens long-term planning and reduces the impact of joint initiatives.

5.3.4.2  Weakening of Advocacy Infrastructure

The disbanding of initiatives such as the Presidential Advisory Council on Diaspora Engagement exemplifies a broader trend of dismantling participatory mechanisms. These initiatives previously provided structured avenues for civil society and diaspora communities to contribute to policy debates. Their loss represents not only a symbolic step backward but a practical barrier to inclusion.

5.3.4.3  Underutilised Diaspora Potential

Griffin emphasised the untapped power of the African diaspora in the U.S. While remittances continue to flow to the continent, political and advocacy engagement remains sporadic and insufficiently organised. Mobilising this group is crucial to confronting misinformation and restoring meaningful engagement in U.S. foreign policy toward Africa.

The diaspora holds potential as a strategic bloc that can influence elections, shape discourse, and elevate African interests in Washington. However, this influence can only be realised through coordinated action and institutional support.

5.3.5  Recommendations and advocacy pathways

In concluding her remarks, Dr. Griffin issued a robust call for advocacy, civic engagement, and reimagined partnerships. She outlined several key recommendations for stakeholders seeking to shape the future of US-Africa relations constructively.

5.3.5.1  Centring advocacy in policy change

Dr Griffin believes that advocacy - grounded in rigorous research - is essential to influencing policy. She urged think tanks and civil society organisations to move from research to action. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), for instance, is a promising initiative, but she argued that its success will depend on sustained advocacy and clearly defined timelines. Advocacy must be forward-looking, realistic, and inclusive of the voices most affected by change.

5.3.5.2  Empowering the diaspora

The diaspora must be recognised not only for its economic contributions but also for its potential as a political force. Griffin called for renewed efforts to organise, fund, and empower diaspora organisations to serve as intermediaries between U.S. institutions and African communities. A stronger diaspora voice can drive home the interconnectedness of African and American futures and ensure that policies reflect this dual reality.

5.3.5.3  Rebuilding participatory structures

With official mechanisms like the diaspora council dismantled, alternative platforms must be built. Griffin referenced organisations such as the African Diaspora Network, the African Women’s Leadership Network, and the Advocacy Network for Africa (ADNA) as potential conveners of renewed civic engagement. These groups can help bridge the gap between grassroots movements and high-level decision-makers, fostering an ecosystem of informed activism.

5.3.5.4  Confronting misinformation

Finally, Griffin emphasised the need to develop a stronger counter-narrative to challenge widespread misinformation. Civil society, academics, and journalists must collaborate to disseminate accurate information and foster a deeper understanding of global interdependence. In an age of disinformation, narrative becomes a tool of power, and reclaiming it is essential for policy justice.

5.3.6  Conclusion

Dr. Anne Griffin’s address offered a powerful and timely reflection on the evolving US-Africa policy landscape. Her message was clear: while the challenges are considerable - ranging from declining aid and isolationism to diasporic disengagement - there are also significant opportunities to shape a more just and inclusive future.

Drawing on her experience as an activist, scholar, and policy expert, she called for renewed commitment to advocacy, a revitalised role for the diaspora, and the reconstruction of participatory institutions. She invoked a strong belief in the power of organised communities to push back against political retrenchment and misinformation.

As the global order is redefined, the principles of solidarity, equality, and sustainability - long sidelined - must once again become central to international engagement. The African diaspora, in particular, has a critical role to play, not only in bridging communities but also in amplifying voices of justice and progress.

In the spirit of that young girl in New Jersey raising her fist for justice, this report echoes Griffin’s optimism that through collective purpose, rigorous scholarship, and sustained advocacy, change is not only possible - it is essential.

5.4  Discussion

The discussion that followed the formal presentation was both rich and wide-ranging, touching on a variety of important themes, particularly relating to African development, global politics, the role of the diaspora, and concerns about shifting geopolitical dynamics. Multiple participants provided their perspectives, grounded in both personal experience and broader political analysis.

5.4.1  The Role of the diaspora and returning talent

One of the central themes was the issue of brain drain and the potential of the African diaspora to contribute to development. A delegate recounted the experiences of highly educated Africans in the diaspora who are underutilised, often reduced to menial jobs despite their qualifications. A notable example was given of a former South Sudanese minister who, despite holding a PhD, was unable to secure employment in the UK beyond security work. Upon returning home, he resumed a significant role in governance. This anecdote was used to underline the mismatch between the qualifications of Africans abroad and the opportunities available to them, both overseas and at home.

It was further stressed that returning diaspora members are often met with limited support and a lack of institutional recognition, which discourages repatriation and reintegration. The delegate urged African governments to create favourable conditions for the return of skilled citizens by offering them meaningful opportunities and by valuing their international experience. Ghana was mentioned as an example of a country actively encouraging African-Americans and other members of the diaspora to return and contribute to national development.

5.4.2  Corruption and structural governance failures

The discussion also dealt heavily with the issue of corruption, which was described as a fundamental obstacle to Africa’s progress. Delegates acknowledged that corruption is pervasive and systemic in many African countries, where holding political office is often seen as a route to personal enrichment rather than public service. Comparisons were drawn with countries like China, which maintains a near-zero tolerance for corruption—underscoring how different governance cultures can dramatically affect development trajectories.

One participant lamented the reality in many African states where, once a person becomes a minister or president, public resources are treated as personal property, with little accountability. The delegate emphasised that this mindset erodes institutional trust and undermines development efforts. There was a strong call for reforms that reduce corruption, increase transparency, and ensure that political officeholders are subject to oversight.

5.4.3  Youth empowerment and the role of technology

Another key issue raised was the generational divide in African governance. The delegate highlighted an incident from their time on the South Sudanese Appointments Committee, where older officials rejected younger candidates for senior positions simply based on their age. The argument was made that youthfulness should not be a disqualifier, especially when younger individuals may be more adept with modern technology and better aligned with contemporary governance challenges.

In this context, the importance of embracing technology as a critical developmental tool was stressed. The delegate drew on personal experiences of seeing technological entrepreneurship in countries like China, where individuals conduct business entirely through their mobile phones. A contrast was made with Africa, where even those with computers often lack the training or confidence to use them effectively. He advocated for a cultural and educational shift, starting from kindergarten, to foster technological literacy and innovation in Africa. Mastering technology, it was argued, would allow African nations to add value to their own raw materials and participate more competitively in global markets.

5.4.4  The Importance of research and capacity building

Building state capacity through research and training was another major point of discussion. One participant described earlier efforts in post-war South Sudan, where a wide range of civil servants, including President Salva Kiir, were sent for training in South Africa in collaboration with the University of South Africa (UNISA). Despite these efforts, the implementation of what was learned remained a challenge. Many of those trained were unable to effectively apply their knowledge, particularly in using computers and digital systems, due to entrenched limitations and resistance within the bureaucracy.

There was frustration expressed over how useful research and curriculum development efforts often go unused by government agencies. The delegate warned that failure to institutionalise continuous training and capacity-building hampers the ability of public servants to adapt to rapidly changing policy and technological environments.

5.4.5  Reassessing US foreign policy and international relations

Attention then turned to international politics, particularly US foreign policy under the Trump administration. A question was raised about the perceived inconsistency and volatility in US relationships with allies like Canada and Europe. In response, another delegate interpreted these shifts as part of a broader strategy of economic nationalism and political signalling, aimed more at domestic audiences and economic gains than at actual strategic realignment. For example, the US’s apparent hostility towards NATO was seen not as a desire to dismantle the alliance, but rather as a method to pressure European allies into increasing defence spending—often on American weapon systems.

Greenland and Canada were referenced in the same vein. Rhetoric about ‘conquering’ or acquiring these territories was interpreted as performative, designed to create noise and uncertainty in service of deeper trade negotiations or political branding.

5.4.6  Is the United States drifting toward dictatorship?

Another provocative question concerned whether the United States could be considered to be exhibiting dictatorial tendencies. The delegate expressing this concern noted what they saw as a disregard for law and international norms, raising alarms about potential authoritarian drift. Responding to this, another participant argued that while the Trump administration indeed projects an anti-establishment and authoritarian style, the real test lies in the strength of institutional checks and balances.

The independence of the judiciary, the resilience of the press, and the public’s reaction to government actions were all cited as critical factors. The point was also made that democracy does not automatically guarantee benign international behaviour. Historically, even liberal democracies have inflicted harm on Africa through colonialism and economic exploitation.

5.4.7  US-Africa relations and the Future of AFRICOM

A final question dealt with the future of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), particularly in the context of military bases such as the one in Djibouti. Although this issue was not explored in depth, the question reflects ongoing concern about the militarisation of US-Africa relations and the implications for sovereignty and regional stability.

5.4.8  Reflection on the United Nations and multilateralism

There was a related concern about the United States’ relationship with the United Nations. Participants expressed unease about the potential erosion of multilateralism, especially given previous US withdrawals from agencies like UNESCO and the WHO. One delegate viewed the early nomination of a new US ambassador to the UN as a possibly hopeful sign of continued engagement, though acknowledged that the tone of US policy remains unpredictable and sometimes antagonistic.

5.4.9  Conclusion

The discussion offered a comprehensive exploration of multiple interlinked challenges facing Africa today - ranging from internal governance issues like corruption and youth marginalisation to external factors such as international diplomacy and geopolitical shifts. It revealed a strong desire among participants to confront these issues honestly, and a recognition that Africa must be proactive in shaping its own development trajectory, leveraging the expertise of its diaspora, embracing technological innovation, and asserting itself in the global arena.

The reflections on US foreign policy also revealed a healthy scepticism and critical engagement with the broader international system, particularly its implications for African sovereignty and agency.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute

The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za