Trump’s Africa economic plan smacks of an ego trip
US President Donald Trump speaks before a luncheon with US and African leaders at the Palace Hotel during the 72nd United Nations General Assembly on September 20. PGOTO | AFP
Trump wants a clearer shift from aid to economic partnership.
What is not clear is how Africa will benefit from the plan beyond his support for economic integration and an improved business environment.
Another element that is clear in his plan is that he wants to kick China out of Africa and take back dominance on the continent; his distaste for China is clear.
Through the plan, Mr Trump seeks to make the US an alternative to ‘China’s often extractive economic footprint on the continent’.
About two weeks ago President Donald Trump released his national security strategy where for the first time, it seems, Africa was directly addressed. He made two intentions clear in the strategy in terms of his economic focus for Africa: the first is that he recognises Africa’s potential as a market for American goods and as a means of building wealth for Americans.
Second, he wants a clearer shift from aid to economic partnership. What is not clear is how Africa will benefit from the plan beyond his support for economic integration and an improved business environment (both of which are already priorities for most African governments).
His plan puts the US interests first, Make America Great Again (MAGA), but it fails to articulate how expanded economic cooperation will benefit African nations and citizens. In short, Mr Trump’s economic plan for Africa is MAGA on steroids.
His obsessive focus with America First will clearly extend beyond the borders of the US and Africa is a mere player in the larger plan to re-establish the global economic dominance of the US. Whether Africa will benefit seems to be of little consequence.
Another element that is clear in his plan is that he wants to kick China out of Africa and take back dominance on the continent; his distaste for China is clear. Through the plan, Mr Trump seeks to make the US an alternative to ‘China’s often extractive economic footprint on the continent’.
What is not clear is how kicking out Chinese and replacing them with US will be of use to Africa.
Will investments from the US be more generous and attractive than China’s? Will investments from the US create more jobs for Africans than China’s? Will the credit lines be more affordable than what China offers? There are no answers to these basic questions in the strategy. Instead what we get is the argument that the US is inherently better for Africa than China--just because.
As can be expected, the plan is already being criticised. China and Russia take issue with being labelled as competitors that challenge American interests.
The language of ‘us versus them’, particularly with regards to China comes out clearly. A pessimist looking through Mr Trump’s strategy would argue that he’s setting up for a proxy war with China over Africa.
However, the most puzzling feature of the strategy, in terms of the economic focus on Africa, is the language. Aren’t we taught in Strategy 101 that one ought not announce plans for dominance as ‘plans for dominance’? One ought to use amicable language that highlights the benefits of mutual cooperation and economic partnership—which is what China does.
Strategic language underplays true intentions of dominance and instead uses language that will put everyone at ease and welcome the player onto the field.
However, rather than discretion, Mr Trump’s language boldly announces his plans to make the US boss of Africa again and thus, transparently, makes his strategic objectives obvious to all.
