I am a lot less bullish than you on Africa’s geopolitical relevance in the coming decades: I struggle to see how the continent would be anywhere near as pivotal to the global power balance as, say, India. Nevertheless, I am extremely wary of encouraging “competition” in Africa, and particularly of encouraging increased American attention.
In the 70s and 80s during the oil crisis, and more recently during the GWOT, US officials didn’t need convincing of the importance of power projection in the Middle East. That hasn’t exactly worked out to the region’s advantage. Latin America has also long had clear importance to the American economy and security posture. The consequences of that for South Americans haven’t been pretty either.
You pointed out that careerists in the state department tend to avoid Africa affairs: I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing, given their results elsewhere. It may prove better to let the ‘Africanists’ do their thing quietly without too much political attention. Part of the reason China’s foreign policy personnel have been so much more effective in Africa than in the EU and US is that those more high-profile postings go to diplomats better versed in party politics than the societies they are immersed into.
There may be short term tactical opportunities to be gained playing off the major powers, but that is more than offset by the risk that African elites will attempt to draw these powers into their own disputes, or be coerced into picking a side. We’re already seeing significant electoral interference, tacit and overt support for coups and dictatorships in the name of counterterrorism or immigration control, awkward silences on human rights violations by ‘friendly African states’. With Russia also seemingly set on shoring up its influence on the continent, this is no time to invite the basilisk glare of the US foreign policy establishment.
A related, but distinct, issue to USAID’s focus on marginalized populations is it’s focus on rural areas on a continent that is rapidly urbanizing. This is both meaningful for progress on development goals and the constituency for donor-funded projects.
I'm curious to know your thoughts about USAID being considered an arm of US intelligence agencies. There is this Telesur article https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/USAID-or-US-CIA-20160919-0013.html from 2016 which nicely sums up the perspective I'm referencing. My apologies if you've already addressed this in other writing, I've just come across your Substack today. If you've written previously about this, perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Regardless I'm looking forward to reading more of your writing, thank you for this piece!
This is a really interesting article! I think related to some of the comments below - from a US foreign strategy perspective, how would you prioritize Africa vs. India (or SE Asia)? And what would the key goals be - securing good diplomatic relations? Establishing manufacturing base or military positioning? To those ends - what regions/countries in Africa would be the top priotities?
My ex is black and told me that he had blacks through the WH non-stop. When an older woman asked him why he hadn't used his executive powers more often to benefit the black community, he reminded her of what happened to Jack Kennedy. He was acutely aware that his life was under threat for 8 years.
I made the same complaint to a black friend, whose reply surprised me: "He did more for blacks than anyone by being black and the president. From age 12-21, my son lived under a black president. That's plenty".
the manner in which Chinese officialdom treats their African counterparts at a personal level?
One mid-level African official who hosted a mid-level Chinese official told me how excited he was when his new Chinese friend told him that, if he wished to bring his family to Beijing, he (the Chinese official) would organize a government-owned apartment and African cook for them.
Later that year he attended a conference in Addis and recounted his experience to an Ethiopian colleague, who responded, "My Chinese guy told me the same thing".
USAID is designed to subsidize US and Western NGOs that can be used to manipulate the internal politics of the receiver nations, as well as subsidize US farmers. Its is a very useful sister to the NED, and part of the US integrated regime change network. Either the US starts respecting African nation's sovereignty in all respects or its influence will fade away. Of course, this would include the alteration of the continent's relationship's with the rapacious and extractive Western corporations such as Cargill, so it will not happen. China stands out just by not being as bad as the US.
When discussing hypothetical outcomes related to the topic of China-US competition in Africa, I once said to a friend in Mozambique the Chinese proverb, "when the snipe and the clam grapple, it is the fisherman who stands to benefit" to which she responded, "when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." She was less optimistic that her government would be able to effectively engage with and harness the potential benefit from this geopolitical competition. Great piece - particularly the section on USAID.
I am a lot less bullish than you on Africa’s geopolitical relevance in the coming decades: I struggle to see how the continent would be anywhere near as pivotal to the global power balance as, say, India. Nevertheless, I am extremely wary of encouraging “competition” in Africa, and particularly of encouraging increased American attention.
In the 70s and 80s during the oil crisis, and more recently during the GWOT, US officials didn’t need convincing of the importance of power projection in the Middle East. That hasn’t exactly worked out to the region’s advantage. Latin America has also long had clear importance to the American economy and security posture. The consequences of that for South Americans haven’t been pretty either.
You pointed out that careerists in the state department tend to avoid Africa affairs: I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing, given their results elsewhere. It may prove better to let the ‘Africanists’ do their thing quietly without too much political attention. Part of the reason China’s foreign policy personnel have been so much more effective in Africa than in the EU and US is that those more high-profile postings go to diplomats better versed in party politics than the societies they are immersed into.
There may be short term tactical opportunities to be gained playing off the major powers, but that is more than offset by the risk that African elites will attempt to draw these powers into their own disputes, or be coerced into picking a side. We’re already seeing significant electoral interference, tacit and overt support for coups and dictatorships in the name of counterterrorism or immigration control, awkward silences on human rights violations by ‘friendly African states’. With Russia also seemingly set on shoring up its influence on the continent, this is no time to invite the basilisk glare of the US foreign policy establishment.
There are worse fates than being ignored.
A related, but distinct, issue to USAID’s focus on marginalized populations is it’s focus on rural areas on a continent that is rapidly urbanizing. This is both meaningful for progress on development goals and the constituency for donor-funded projects.
I'm curious to know your thoughts about USAID being considered an arm of US intelligence agencies. There is this Telesur article https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/USAID-or-US-CIA-20160919-0013.html from 2016 which nicely sums up the perspective I'm referencing. My apologies if you've already addressed this in other writing, I've just come across your Substack today. If you've written previously about this, perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Regardless I'm looking forward to reading more of your writing, thank you for this piece!
This is a really interesting article! I think related to some of the comments below - from a US foreign strategy perspective, how would you prioritize Africa vs. India (or SE Asia)? And what would the key goals be - securing good diplomatic relations? Establishing manufacturing base or military positioning? To those ends - what regions/countries in Africa would be the top priotities?
My ex is black and told me that he had blacks through the WH non-stop. When an older woman asked him why he hadn't used his executive powers more often to benefit the black community, he reminded her of what happened to Jack Kennedy. He was acutely aware that his life was under threat for 8 years.
I made the same complaint to a black friend, whose reply surprised me: "He did more for blacks than anyone by being black and the president. From age 12-21, my son lived under a black president. That's plenty".
the manner in which Chinese officialdom treats their African counterparts at a personal level?
One mid-level African official who hosted a mid-level Chinese official told me how excited he was when his new Chinese friend told him that, if he wished to bring his family to Beijing, he (the Chinese official) would organize a government-owned apartment and African cook for them.
Later that year he attended a conference in Addis and recounted his experience to an Ethiopian colleague, who responded, "My Chinese guy told me the same thing".
USAID is designed to subsidize US and Western NGOs that can be used to manipulate the internal politics of the receiver nations, as well as subsidize US farmers. Its is a very useful sister to the NED, and part of the US integrated regime change network. Either the US starts respecting African nation's sovereignty in all respects or its influence will fade away. Of course, this would include the alteration of the continent's relationship's with the rapacious and extractive Western corporations such as Cargill, so it will not happen. China stands out just by not being as bad as the US.
When discussing hypothetical outcomes related to the topic of China-US competition in Africa, I once said to a friend in Mozambique the Chinese proverb, "when the snipe and the clam grapple, it is the fisherman who stands to benefit" to which she responded, "when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." She was less optimistic that her government would be able to effectively engage with and harness the potential benefit from this geopolitical competition. Great piece - particularly the section on USAID.
DFC now that it's taking over from OPIC has more teeth a s might be progress for the USG. we shall see.