Africa and the Oval Office shouting match
- keebleeleanor
- Mar 2, 2025
- 6 min read
As the reverberations of the Oval Office shouting match echo around the world, what’s clear is not just the scale but the complexity of Trump’s shock reset of international relations.
Both have a profound impact on Africa which risks losing aid and trade with former partners and finding itself increasingly dependent on a range of more problematic global players. Unless, that is, the continent can shake off the last of its aid dependency, boost intra continental trade and develop manufacturing capacity.
So the work that I’ve been doing for the Economic Commission for Africa on measuring trade in value added with a view to identifying potential growth areas, takes on a new relevance and urgency.
Hal Brands, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said of last week’s events: "Trump is essentially orchestrating a global bidding war for America's (or rather, Trump's) favour." Winning Trump’s favour is not just as a direct supplicant by agreeing to his demands at the risk of global humiliation. For even his favoured partners it means falling in line with his policy preferences.
This shift has forced NATO partners to acknowledge—some might say belatedly—the necessity of increasing defence spending as a share of national budgets. In the UK, this has translated into a commitment to expand the country’s defence manufacturing capacity, a move that comes at the direct expense of foreign aid. This development aligns with the prediction in my previous post: the dismantling of USAID has triggered a domino effect, reshaping global priorities away from development.
This is a far cry from the optimistic globalism of the western alliance in the Blair-Clinton era.
The widening rift between the United States and Europe, Donald Trump’s strategic pivot towards Russia, and escalating conflicts in Africa, such as the M23 militia crisis in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), throw into question the future of security on the continent. What are the implications for Africa of the global realignment as the US jettisons its role as primary funder of international development and trashes its historic alliances with formerly like-minded partners?
Filling the vacuum left by the US
As the west regroups without its key player, other nations are moving into the vacuum: Russia as a military power and China with its economic heft, the Gulf States with their sovereign wealth funds and emerging powers like India now flexing global muscles. For Africa, this could mean:
Increased Russian and Chinese influence: Russia is set to expand its military and security presence through arms deals and mercenary groups like the Wagner Group, while China is likely to deepen economic ties through investment and debt diplomacy.
Security gaps and instability: With the US reducing its counterterrorism role in the Sahel, East Africa, and the Horn of Africa, jihadist groups like Al-Shabaab and ISIS affiliates may exploit security vacuums.
Shifts toward authoritarian alliances: The absence of US promotion of governance and democracy means that authoritarian regimes in Africa may align more closely with Russia and China for security guarantees and political support.
Challenges in finding new markets: As Western nations shift toward building domestic manufacturing in response to global supply chain disruptions, African exporters may face fiercer competition and shrinking market access. This is compounded by the possibility of more countries adopting American-style tariffs to protect domestic industries. In response, African nations will need to diversify their trade partners and strengthen intra-African commerce. A critical tool in mitigating these challenges is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which presents an opportunity for African nations to reduce dependence on Western markets and build stronger intra-African trade networks.
Increased pressure on African natural resources: Trump’s robust demand for access to Ukraine’s natural wealth in exchange for continued US support emboldens those making similar demands of African nations. America’s new transactional approach to diplomacy may lead to demands for preferential access to African critical minerals—such as cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements—to secure its technological and defence industries. This could create intensified resource competition, leading to environmental degradation akin to the exploitation seen under China’s extractive industries, where lax regulations and unchecked mining have caused significant and long-term ecological damage. The continent may find itself under increasing external pressure to grant resource concessions in exchange for security or economic deals.
The role of Europe: Stand up or step back?
Trump has a notoriously short attention span, but the effects of his tantrums will be long term. Some European nations are already bending to his pressure. The UK has increased its defence spending at the expense of development, while, Germany’s recent elections have shown that populism continues to gain ground. These shifts will not be easily reversed.
If Europe chooses to step back Russia and China are poised to expand their influence, forging military partnerships and deepening economic ties, shifting Africa further into a multipolar sphere where Western influence is diminished. The absence of strong European development frameworks could create instability, pushing African nations to rely on alternative alliances with China, Turkey, and the Gulf states. Furthermore, European countries that have long provided economic assistance to Africa may struggle to maintain stability as funding shifts away from governance and development aid, potentially fuelling economic turbulence exacerbating instability.
A more assertive European strategy in Africa could offer an alternative to Russian and Chinese influence, focusing on sustainable development, infrastructure investment, and security cooperation. Europe could leverage its economic power to maintain its role as a key partner, balancing Africa’s reliance on transactional partnerships with the US and Russia. Engaging African nations in trade and security dialogues could help Europe remain a relevant force despite US disengagement, preventing Africa from becoming solely dependent on authoritarian partners.
Who else steps in? Alternative players
With the west in retreat, those ready to fill the vacuum include:
China: Already Africa’s largest trading partner, China will continue expanding its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects while increasing military cooperation in key regions.
Russia: The Kremlin is strengthening its influence by offering security guarantees, military aid, and political backing to African leaders who seek alternatives to Western conditionalities.
Turkey and the Gulf States: Nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are investing in African infrastructure, ports, and defense, offering alternatives to both Western and Eastern blocs.
India and Brazil: Emerging powers are increasingly engaging in African markets, providing opportunities for economic partnerships beyond the traditional great-power rivalry.
The African Response: Navigating a shifting order
For Africa, this new reality presents both risks and opportunities. African nations must act strategically to ensure they are not merely pawns in a great power game but active participants in shaping their own futures. Key considerations include:
Economic self-sufficiency: reducing dependency on foreign aid by investing in intra-African trade and industrialisation will be crucial for maintaining autonomy on the world stage. The AfCFTA plays a key role in this transformation by removing tariffs and trade barriers across the continent, stimulating industrialisation, and fostering regional supply chains. However, for AfCFTA to reach its full potential, countries must accelerate infrastructure development, harmonise regulations, and invest in local production capacity. A key strategy involves expanding manufacturing capabilities to boost trade in value-added (TiVA) products, reducing reliance on raw material exports and increasing Africa’s global competitiveness. In this regard, the African Continental Input-Output Table (AfCIOT), which I am assisting in developing, is a crucial tool for optimising these policies. By providing a comprehensive analysis of production linkages across African economies, it helps policymakers identify sectors with the highest potential for regional value chain integration. This data-driven approach ensures that trade policies are strategically aligned to enhance industrial output, maximise intra-African trade, and drive sustainable economic growth across the continent.
Strengthening regional frameworks: African-led solutions through organisations like the African Union (AU) can provide counterweights to external pressures: these could start with African-led approaches to resolving the conflicts in DRC and Sudan.
Diversification of alliances: expanding engagements beyond the West and Russia, leveraging China, India, and Gulf states for alternative economic and security partnerships.
Proactive player or collateral damage?
Russia, China, Europe and regional powers are all positioning themselves to fill the vacuum created by last week’s events in the Oval office. Africa has a choice: whether to assert itself as a proactive player, shaping strategies and partnerships that prioritise its long-term stability and growth rather than becoming collateral damage in the emerging geopolitical struggle.
Sources:
Comments