In Cape Town, in 2009, the very air rang with joy.
“Obama!
Obama!” the passersby yelled out their windows when my American friends
and I walked down the street. That sense of exultation swept the entire
African continent after Barack Obama won the U.S. presidency. Beneath
the pride — a son of Africa had claimed the world’s most powerful office
— lay a deeper sense that U.S. policy would do right by the continent.
President-elect
Donald J. Trump will enter office without such fanfare, says Kelsey
Lilley, associate director of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council —
and with some observers very nervous about his “more
incendiary comments” about refugees and Muslims on a continent with large, diverse populations of both. Among Africanists and African leaders, there is uncertainty about what Trump’s Africa policy will look like. Compounding the uncertainty is the fact that Trump’s bench of Africa experts isn’t terribly deep. There’s usually a “constellation of advisers and confidants — people they would be tapping,” says Todd Moss, chief operating officer and longtime Africanist at the Center for Global Development. But “that’s just not the case now,” he adds.
incendiary comments” about refugees and Muslims on a continent with large, diverse populations of both. Among Africanists and African leaders, there is uncertainty about what Trump’s Africa policy will look like. Compounding the uncertainty is the fact that Trump’s bench of Africa experts isn’t terribly deep. There’s usually a “constellation of advisers and confidants — people they would be tapping,” says Todd Moss, chief operating officer and longtime Africanist at the Center for Global Development. But “that’s just not the case now,” he adds.
Indeed,
some respected Republican experts on Africa, like former Assistant
Secretaries of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer and Chester
Crocker, denounced Trump in the run-up to his election. And the African
ties we do know of are somewhat bleak: Newt Gingrich wrote his Ph.D.
thesis on Belgian education in the Congo without ever visiting the
country, and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort lobbied for
Congolese warlord Mobutu Sésé Seko and Angolan rebel leader Jonas
Savimbi in the 1980s.
So, many are watching closely to see who
fills the ranks. Until then, it’s premature to have “any great
confidence” about how a Trump Africa policy will look, says Moss. But
there are some clues as to what the next U.S. administration might
portend for Africa. Here are four areas where Trump’s team might take a
different tack or even stay the course.
Democracy and Dictators
After
Trump’s victory, the hashtag #Nov8AfricanEdition started trending on
African Twitter, reflecting an eerie sense of foreboding. The U.S. had
just elected a man whose rhetoric echoed that of some of the continent’s
most powerful autocrats — threats to jail opponents, accusations of
election rigging, etc. Joking tweets about African heads of state being sent to the U.S. to resolve our election crisis offered a particular irony.
Meanwhile, term-limit-changing presidents like Paul Kagame of Rwanda,
Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Joseph Kabila
of Congo rushed to congratulate the new U.S. president-elect.
Are the continent’s longstanding rulers rejoicing at what will be a
warmer relationship with the man in the oval office? Not likely, says
writer and Congo expert Jason Stearns. More likely? That Trump will have
a largely hands-off governing style because of his lack of experience
on the continent. While the Obama administration and his predecessors
watched closely over politics in Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Congo, many think
Trump is “just not going to care as much, and they’ll have more
breathing room,” says Stearns. American democracy promotion might have
met its match.
Legacy Deals
Support for
U.S. Africa policy has historically been unusually bipartisan, with
major policies continuing across both Republican and Democratic
presidencies since the 1990s. Legacy legislation like Bill Clinton’s
African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which increased access to
U.S. markets for some African countries, was expanded by Bush and
renewed by Congress for another decade just last year, with overwhelming
support. George W. Bush’s 2003 President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) gave special funding to HIV/AIDS programs across Africa
and has been critical to reducing infection rates and improving access
to antiretroviral drugs. The more recent Power Africa legislation is
seen as a bipartisan effort to boost private investment in power
infrastructure. The Obama administration spent “the last eight years
largely building on the Bush legacy,” says Moss. Lilley argues there’s
“no reason to believe” that there will be dramatic change under Trump.
African Economies
Many
at USAID and the Department of State are looking for other jobs amid
fears that budgets will be slashed, says Stearns. And cuts in foreign
assistance to the continent may be coming just as African countries need
it the most. Falling commodity prices could exacerbate the looming
famine crisis in Nigeria and human tolls of conflict in South Sudan and
Burundi. If Trump really imposes the 45 percent tariff he’s threatened
on Chinese goods, that will likely hurt African economies. Many
countries are already facing copper, cobalt and zinc slumps, in part
“because of the Chinese economic slowdown” and global drop in commodity
prices, says Stearns. Conversely, Trump could see trade with Africa as a
way to compete with the Chinese; since 2009 China has been Africa’s
largest trading partner.
Given President-elect Trump’s promises
to focus on roads, bridges, water and the internet, we might see
“renewed emphasis on infrastructure investment in Africa,” says Moss.
Power Africa could be bolstered or, at the very least, receive
continuing support too. After all, the program is designed to attract
private investment into Africa’s power sector, and better connectivity
is good for African economies and the global economy.
Africom and Terrorism
Trump
will be forced to focus on the continuing emerging threats of terrorism
in parts of Africa — including ISIS-linked Boko Haram, al-Qaida in the
Islamic Maghreb, ISIS splinter groups in Libya and al-Shabaab in
Somalia. It would be safe to assume we will have the continued
militarization of foreign policy when dealing with less-than-democratic
countries like Ethiopia and Uganda, both of which have been critical
partners in fighting terrorism, as well as the continued use of Djibouti
as a base. There’s also potential for a larger role for the U.S. Africa
Command on the continent — a divisive issue for some Africans who view
more visible bases as a redux of colonialism.
Human Rights and Health
Historically,
U.S. policy in Africa has included strong support for free press and
civil society in restrictive regimes — often preventing community
leaders or journalists from being jailed or exiled. U.S. support for
government health ministries will be critical to preventing or
mitigating another outbreak of Ebola or infectious disease with global
implications. Access to clean water and issues like girls’ education
have been cornerstones of the American relationship with many African
countries. There’s “a very strong tradition within the Republican party
of support for foreign assistance, particularly global health and the
use of it to support our national security for policy goals,” says Moss.
On
the flip side, the official Republican platform in 2012 said support
for access to abortion and LGBTQ rights in Africa were areas they would
oppose if they were in power. But we don’t yet know exactly what kind of
“Republican” administration Trump has in mind. There’s also the more
delicate dance of dealing with the “G” word and the huge fallout around
whether and when we call mass killings genocide. It’s a game that Trump
might be loathe to play, and one with potentially lethal fallout —
watchdogs are already keeping a close eye on South Sudan and Burundi.
There’s
a chance that President Trump, with the right advisers, could be the
partner many African governments desire. (Or he writes the continent off
as corrupt, as this tweet
suggests.) For decades, U.S. engagement in Africa has been premised on
aid or security. “A lot of people — on both sides of the political
spectrum — have been advocating for a change,” says Joshua Meservey, an
Africa and Middle East policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation.
Since Trump’s a businessman, perhaps he’ll approach deal-making on the
continent with more “equal footing.” That’s something both sides of the
aisle can root for.
Source: OZY News.
Comments