The US is a powerful country. The leadership transition starting January 20 has been the subject of debate globally.
As of Friday, January 23, President Donald J. Trump has signed at least 50 Executive orders, swiftly upending Joe Biden's domestic and international governance policies.
Across the world, the new proclamations have been received with a mixture of alarm, disappointment, and pragmatism. The implementation timelines are as brutally short.
Both domestic and external policies will impact foreign countries. However, because the external-facing decrees have direct ramifications, these are the ones countries worldwide are focused on. Of these … directly impact Africa.
Consternation has been expressed about Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord on climate change, the World Health Organization, and a squeeze on funding for refugees. This was largely expected. It is to the overall foreign policy that the first stab at understanding the sea change in US policy to Africa should be directed.
Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, the America First foreign policy was on the cards. This has now been codified via the “America First policy directive to the secretary of state” an explicit, terse, and consequential order.
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is tasked with aligning all US programmes with the new policy, recalling the Trump I era (2017-2020).
This marks the end of a foreign policy of equal partnership between African countries as stated in the Biden administration’s policy on Africa, released in August 2020.
The African Union ambassador to Washington DC – Zimbabwean Hilda Suka-Mafudze – will have to change tack in engaging with the new administration.
It can be expected that a new US ambassador to the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa will equally wind down any pretence to equal partnership between the continent in Washington DC.
Countries that had charted good relations with the US among them, Kenya, Angola, Nigeria, Egypt, Zambia, Malawi, and the DRC, will have to rapidly shift gears.
The shift in foreign policy is backed by the decree on “re-evaluating and realigning United States foreign aid”.
In rescinding the “United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy”, Trump is looking to staunch an apparent expenditure of US dollars not beneficial to the US.
According to the World Report newspaper, the top ten recipients of US aid in 2024 are: Ukraine ($17.2 billion), Israel ($3.3 billion), Jordan ($1.7 billion), Egypt ($1.5 billion), Ethiopia ($1.5 billion), Somalia ($1.2 billion), Nigeria ($1 billion), DR Congo ($990 million), Afghanistan ($886.5 million), and Kenya ($846 million).
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt are unlikely to be affected given that they are key allies in the US’ Middle East strategy. Ukraine is likely to see a drastic reduction given Trump’s promise to end its war with Russia, the war being the justification for US support.
All the top African recipients would do well to think hard about how to plug the budgetary deficits that will ensue.
A glimmer of hope for aid-dependent countries is that the pause in the development assistance is for 90 days to allow for a review and redesign of the aid programmes.
African leaders interested in returning to the aid recipient list would do well to advocate and lobby their cases, perhaps leveraging their embassies in Washington and their home countries.
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio will be the go-to official. However, because he will be inundated, African countries would do well to reach out to the as-yet-confirmed Africa Bureau and White House nominees.
The African diplomats would also do well putting their ears on the ground to figure out the potential nominees for ambassadors to the continent.
A more realistic approach however is for the African Union – under a new chairman from February – to develop a strategy for internal African resource mobilsation, engagement with an aid-averse US, and seeking out other external partners such as the European Union and China.
In keeping with the America First policy, the “America First Trade Policy” is off to a brisk start. In the executive order on trade, Trump’s executive order is directed to role players: the secretaries of state, treasury, defence, commerce, homeland security, and the United States Trade Representative, among others.
These officials will be implementing new actions including creating, the External Revenue Services, a new entity to collect tariffs, duties, and revenues.
Either the African countries are too small a fish to fry, or they will suffer the anticipated uniform implementation approach.
While the target is countries with large trade deficits with the US – particularly China – Africa will be collateral damage.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative, an entity housed in State House, will be crucial for Africa because this is where the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) is located.
African beneficiaries of this preferential trade arrangement – the so-called AGOA utilisation rate – such as Kenya, Lesotho, and South Africa – will likely be impacted by the plan to review and redesign US trade partnerships.
In any case, Trump’s executive order on trade indicates a preference for bilateral rather than multilateral trade agreements like AGOA.
Challenges of the kind Trump’s executive orders present are grim setbacks for an aid-dependent Africa. They are also an opportunity for Africans to exercise agency by fashioning homegrown solutions to engagement with, not just the US, but all great and middle powers.
Dr Wekesa is Director, African Centre for the Study of the US, and visiting professor at the universities of Southern California and Howard: [email protected] .
