Africa’s prospects in new Trump’s era

AMERICA’S DEMOCRACY, deemed the global epitome and exemplar by many countries of the world, is currently undergoing a test of relevance and endurance. Depending on which side the analysis is coming from, it is reasonable to expect divergent opinions on the outcome of the election that was recently concluded. The US political spectrum is comparable to a coin with two sides and a round edge. The two opposing sides of Democrats and Republicans have dominated the political landscape for so long since the founding of the democratic system of governance that has become a tradition in the country and elsewhere in  the world. The third part — one that is akin to the circumference, or the edge — serving as a platform for the independents, has been less prominent as it does not have strong institutional structure to sustain it. 

Although the politics of the US is tied to its own idea of democracy, the internal democracy of the US is not exactly like what it projects to the outside world or what it encourages the outside world to practise as democracy. In reality, what it is mostly concerned about abroad is all about its own self-interest, essentially leading to foreign policies that often fuel crises elsewhere in the world. Although, in its foreign relations, the US doesn’t seem overly keen on direct colonialism, it nonetheless does it by other means: it meddles in other nations’ affairs by taking down leaders who refuse to do its bidding while also being instrumental to setting up puppets who dance to its tunes. There is a long history behind this, as some remarkable instances through contemporary times are worthy of attention. 

In the 1970s, the removal of Chile’s Salvador Allende and the toppling of his democratic socialist government was noteworthy as the US helped to kill democracy in Chile then at the instance of U.S. hegemonic control in Latin America. Henry Kissinger was appointed Secretary of State on September 21, 1973 by President Richard M. Nixon and served in the position till January 20, 1977. His obsession with Chile enabled the rise of the murderous dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet that was propped up after being helped to topple Allende in the  September 11, 1973 Chilean coup d’état. Kissinger did not hide his support for Pinochet’s regime. 

US Cold War paranoia played out in the case of the ouster and death of Patrice Lumumba in the newly independent Belgian Congo, which was only recently handed over to the Congolese people on June 30, 1960. However, by August of 1960, the White House, galvanised by Lumumba’s turn to the Soviets, had reportedly authorised a secret C.I.A. scheme to “replace the Lumumba government by constitutional means,” whatever that meant, according to The New Yorker. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, during a Cabinet meeting in the same month, was said to have made comments that some interpreted as a call for assassination as he was quoted by a writer as saying Lumumba “offended his sense of decorum.” The story of the scheming to kill Lumumba is an extension of this overt attempt to replace his government. The Lumumba replacement that ruled Congo as Zaire for three decades had little or no problem with America — the Seko administration. For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States, a country that was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire then. 

There seem to be some conflicting accounts on why the US turned from being a Gaddafi ally to his foe. By some accounts, the invasion of Libya and the eventual killing of Muammar Gaddafi — previously a US ally — was attributed to increasing turmoil in the Middle East which led to the Arab spring. It has, however, been surmised that the main reason former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed was a preventative measure, because he was trying to institute an African unity and create an independent hard currency in Africa, thus ditching the petro dollar. The disquiet about Gaddafi’s nuclear ambition was a prominent concern in the West. According to the Cato Institute, the Obama administration wrecked Libya for a generation. In 2003, Gaddafi had voluntarily halted his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes and surrendered his arsenals to the United States. Yet, Obama helped organise a NATO-led intervention in Libya, ultimately resulting in the fall of Gaddafi’s regime. Since the exit of Gaddafi, Libya has been in a state of turmoil. In the past couple of years, the country has undergone bitter armed struggle. It has been divided into two under different governments, with two different administrative capitals — the west being under a UN-recognised civilian administration in Tripoli and the east under Khalifa Haftar, a military warlord who only recently capitulated and agreed to work with the leadership at Tripoli for the resolution of the longstanding conflict that has practically paralysed Libya. 

The underlying intelligence that served as basis for the attack on Iraq on purported accusations of having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has been proved to be false. With the benefits of hindsight, it has now become public knowledge that the false WMD allegations were used as a deliberate pretext and secondary to a deeper drive to invade Iraq, overthrow the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, and occupy the country. On February 5, 2003, as part of the logical arguments and justification for the decision of the United States that was preparing to invade Iraq, Secretary of State (retired General) Colin Powell made a pivotal presentation to the United Nations Security Council, claiming that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He repeatedly used the “weapons of mass destruction” phrase during his hour-long speech. In a brazen and hasty attempt to justify the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration began attempting to mix its “war on terror” rhetoric with weapons of mass destruction allegations. President George W. Bush had argued for launching a military attack on Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush declared an end to diplomacy with Iraq in a buildup to the impending invasion. From the ashes of US invasion of Iraq arose the terrorist group called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Founded in 2004, it affiliated itself with al-Qaeda in Iraq and fought alongside them during the 2003 to 2006 phase of the Iraqi insurgency. This group expanded and held about a third of Syria and 40 percent of Iraq. 

In 2014, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan assented to a bill outlawing gay relationships and same-sex marriage. But claims were made that former US President Barack Obama asked the former President Goodluck Jonathan to delay signing the law. In his response to Obama’s criticisms during a visit to Kenya in 2015, President Uhuru Kenyatta bluntly shut down Mr Obama’s discussion about the need for equality for the LGBT community. During a joint press conference, President Uhuru Kenyatta called gay rights a “non-issue” for his country, asking Obama to respect their rejection of homosexuality. In March 2023, Vice President Kamala Harris visited Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia — three countries in Africa. One of her key messages during the visit was that she was speaking out for LGBTQ+ rights while visiting Ghana. She, however, met stiff resistance as Ghana’s legislature was preparing to pass a legislation that would impose stiff penalties on  LGBTQ. Earlier in February, before Harris’ visit, President Samia Suluhu had described LGBTQ rights as “imported cultures” as she cautioned university students against it. Even much earlier, in September 2022,  — Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema has reiterated that his government does not support LGBTQ and intersex rights. It was thus interesting why and how Kamala Harris chose such a subject as an important part of her foreign policy messages as she announced during her stop in Ghana, that “I feel very strongly about the importance of supporting” the LGBTQ rights. If this was not meddling in Africa’s internal affairs by the US, what else was it?

What exactly should be the reason why African countries have to pander to the whims of the US? Trade relations are expected to be carried out under mutual agreements. And Africa has a lot of opportunities to take advantage of. The historic trade deals between Africa and the US will be worth comparing. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a flagship  multilateral trade deal with the US, was signed into law on May 18, 2000. The Act, at the core of U.S. economic policy and commercial engagement with Africa, offers tangible incentives for African countries to continue their efforts to open their economies and build free markets in a landmark preferential trade programme that allows countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to export products to the United States tariff free. Over the past 24 years, the programme — originally designed and legislated to cover the years from 2000 to 2008 — has undergone legislative amendments and has been updated and extended a number of times, first to 2012, then 2015, and then on and on to expire in September 2025. This offers a good window for Africa. 

AGOA, a great way to circumvent trade tariffs under US-Africa trade, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. Additionally, President-elect Donald Trump supported AGOA during his first term, as a component of his African Strategy. He is very likely to do so again even more and support its extension this time. His earlier Prosper Africa initiative was said to have closed 2,500 deals across 49 African countries, amounting to $30 billion a year, amounting to about $120 billion over his four years in office, then. Even in 2023, under President Joe Biden, the outgoing administration, U.S. trade imports under AGOA totaled $9.7 billion. In 2022, combined two-way trade between AGOA beneficiaries and the US exceeded $46 billion, with US imports exceeding exports by $13.5 billion. AGOA beneficiaries exported $30 billion worth of goods to the US in that year, with $10.2 billion traded under duty-free AGOA preference. 

Rather than getting carried away by some politicians and their anti-Trump rhetorics, African countries that are well prepared will have a lot to reap if they positioned themselves very well in trade relations with the US under the new Trump era. It is time to rise up and take up the unfolding opportunities.

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com