Washington’s new Africa policy suggests a changed Caribbean relationship
WHAT SHOULD one make of the recent announcement by the US president’s national security adviser, John Bolton, outlining a new ‘America First’ policy towards Africa?
If taken at face value it suggests that the US administration is embarking on a policy that regards the continent as a cold-war playground in which superpowers vie for influence and control, irrespective of the sovereignty of the states concerned.
At the same time, it implies that the decades-long US-policy neglect of the continent and its cession of engagement to Europe is at an end.
More important it sets out clearly a new US foreign-policy model which offers benefits only to those nations that are deemed politically willing to accept its embrace.
Speaking in Washington, DC, on December 14 at an event organised by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, the national security adviser set out an approach that sees Africa as a region in which the US in future intends to ensure that it has a competitive advantage over China and Russia.
In his remarks, Mr Bolton said that the new Africa strategy was the result of an intensive interagency process that reflected the core tenets of President Trump’s foreign-policy doctrine, which is “to put the interests of the American people first, both at home and abroad”.
He framed the new policy not in terms of what might be good for Africa, but in relation to the national-security interests of the United States, observing that “every decision we make, every policy we pursue, and every dollar of aid we spend will further US priorities in the region”.
Future support, he suggested, will be undertaken in ways that advance US trade, counter the threat from radical Islamic terrorism and violent conflict, and ensure that US taxpayer support will be used efficiently and effectively.
He then went on to outline the criteria that the US will use for Africa.
In the outline, Mr Bolton said that US aid will be targeted on “key countries and specified strategic objectives”. “All US aid”, he told his audience, “will advance US interests and help African nations move towards self-reliance” with, as a first objective, improving opportunities for US businesses, safeguarding the economic independence of African states, and protecting US national-security interests.
CHINA AND RUSSIA’S INFLUENCE
The new policy will be designed to address China and Russia’s rapidly expanding financial and political influence in Africa by creating bilaterally negotiated, modern, comprehensive trade agreements that create a “fair and reciprocal exchange” between the US and African nations.
Mr Bolton also said that the US will re-evaluate its support for UN peacekeeping missions; ensure that all aid monies spent advance US interests; and will insist that recipients invest in health and education, have accountable government and fiscal policy, end corruption, and promote the rule of law. He also noted that the US will revisit the ideas behind the Marshall Plan – the programme that supported the post Second World War recovery in Europe – and end support for countries that repeatedly vote against the US or take actions counter to US interests.
What was striking about his remarks was Mr Bolton’s emphasis on “great power competition”, moving African states towards self-reliance and ending long-term dependency, and the centrality of outcomes that result in ‘America first’ in all US actions and policies.
Paradoxically, it comes when significant economic progress is being made by many African nations, often with substantial development support from China and without the overt political conditionalities of the kind the US is now proposing.
IDENTICAL POLICY FOR THE REGION
How the multitude of very different nations that make up the African continent will respond has yet to be seen, but the Caribbean can be certain that an almost identical policy for the region is on the way.
It is an approach that is at odds with the development through-dialogue approach that Europe takes in Africa and the intentionally opaque, but on the whole, politically y unconditional interdependent economic partnership that China pursues. It suggests a desire to rewrite piece by piece the global rules of engagement in ways that set aside multilateralism in favour of a black-and-white world view that requires nations to accept US supremacy.
Read carefully what was said, substitute the word ‘Caribbean’ for ‘Africa’, and it is clear that President Trump ’s world view, as reflected by Mr Bolton, is just as likely to be applied in the same way in future to the Caribbean and the Pacific and Indian oceans, as it is to Africa.
It is likely that next year, US thinking on its relations with the the hemisphere, including the Caribbean, will also become clear. In one way or another, it is expected that in 2019, Washington will spell out in detail the actions it intends taking against Venezuela and Cuba, its trade policy in the hemisphere, a bigger role for sanctions, and how practically it intends to respond to China and possibly Russia’s very different forms of engagement in the Americas.
US political thinking about the Caribbean has until recently been driven largely by perception of' the position that individual nations have taken in relation to Venezuela. However, in October, the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and then in November, the US vice-president, Mike Pence, both made clear, specifically and generally, that nations’ relations with China were driving US foreign policy.
More recently it has become apparent that the views of Marco Rubio, the Republican US senator, on Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have become central to determining future US policy towards Latin America a and the Caribbean. If adopted, this may see beyond concern about China, the development of transaction policies towards third countries determined, in Africa, through trade, development assistance and sanctions, that discriminate against nations unwilling to comply with US policy.
Changing US policy on Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean poses complex questions for the Caribbean, as well as for Europe and US allies that presently work in partnership.
Most will welcome the idea of a focus on health and education, accountability, measures to end corruption, and the promotion of the rule of law. However, they know well from their shared colonial history what happens when economic benefit and decision making are dictated by one party to another.
David Jessop is a consultant to the Caribbean Council. david.jessop@caribbean-council.org