Biden- Africa Relations: Same old or new story?

According to General Stephen J. Townsend, U. S. Army commander of the U. S Africa Command, the United States considers Africa as a major crossroads of international commerce and trade, surrounded by the world’s most important sea lines of communication, namely the Mediterranean Sea, the Strait of Gibraltar on NATO’s southern flank, the Red Sea and the Bab al Mandeb strait, in addition to the Mozambique Channel. These corridors sea lines communication routes facilitate one- third of the world’s shipping, and are key to the transportation of Africa’s vast natural resources, including energy and strategic minerals. President- elect Joe Biden has put foreign leaders on notice, declaring, “America is back.” The world is now waiting, and listening, for what comes next as the Biden-Harris administration ‘ reintroduces’ America to the world. But the world stage does not have an orderly auditorium. It is a chaotic and contested battleground. Critically, African audiences do not see themselves as pawns in a geopolitical chess match between China and the United States. We have our own aspirations and purposes. Asking Africa to limit its options, particularly in emerging and developing economies and technologies, is likely to backfire. Meanwhile, Africans see the United States as only interested in them as pawns in some great- power competition. Biden could change all of this, for the better.

Seeing Africans as Africans and not pawns in some great game paradoxically could go a long way toward strengthening the United States’ position in its competition with other powers. More so, if it translates into engagement with, and investment in, African economies and institutions in ways that are not limited to and transparently about countering Chinese moves. First of all, it is impossible to compete with the Chinese ( and Iranians, Russians, Turks, etc.) when one is not even engaging. Secondly, attempts to steer Africans away from Russia and China through badmouthing and mudslinging, is counterproductive, especially if America is acting no differently. Besides, the United States government has overly securitised US- Africa relations. Its engagement has been overly focused on security matters and providing security assistance. The security assistance is not a bad thing, but there may be more productive ways of investing in other countries’ institutions and societies. Ongoing counterterrorism efforts will likely need to remain in place, and the spread of Islamist radicalism to Mozambique in East Africa, and the West African littoral suggests they may in fact have to grow. Now could be a perfect time, however, to review two decades of experience to refine counterterrorism efforts and also find ways to help partner nations address the economic, political, and social aspects of the conflicts.

Security- related efforts can, at best, create the space and time needed by partner governments and their allies to address the myriad local problems that tend to fuel insurgencies and terrorism by encouraging local actors to rally to the flag of jihad. Security assistance intended to make partner- nation security forces more effective may be necessary, but it rarely if ever is sufficient. No one at this point should have any illusions to the contrary. The focus therefore could shift to helping partner nations. As for security assistance, the poor performance of many partner nation security services might prompt a thorough rethinking. Africa matters already and could matter much more in the foreseeable future; it could behove U. S. policymakers to engage with the region to ensure that the United States will be positioned to take full advantage of whatever opportunities arise, and, when necessary, do whatever might be possible to avert unfavourable outcomes. Neither is possible if America remains aloof.