US Losing Competitive Edge in Africa

By Gregory Simpkins

The global environment is changing at an accelerating pace. The post-World War II arrangements have broken down to be replaced by an emerging order in which formerly developing countries are taking charge economically and increasingly in the political space. It should be expected that at some point developing countries will reach a sufficient level of development at which they consistently can exert their own agency. Parents recognize this as the point at which their offspring express their own informed views and can back them up by becoming independent of parental control. Being an ally now means more than being a follower.

In a March 4, 2024 article on the website Watcher.Guru, Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country was one of the founders of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China South Africa) coalition, said the BRICS group could control 37 percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2028 and that the Group of Seven (G7) bloc of Western nations global GDP power would fall below 28 percent.

This is not merely braggadocio on Putin’s part. As of last year, the G7 controlled US$45.9 trillion in GDP, of which the United States accounted for $US26.9 trillion. At that same point, the BRICS group controlled US$30.8 trillion. However the BRICS are expanding, and the G7 are plagued by high inflation and lowered economic growth. Since then, the group has added Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran, and dozens of other countries, most of them resource-rich, have sought membership as well.

There have been White House visits with African presidents with all five recent U.S. presidents, but discussions on policy are most often held with the U.S. State Department officials, and that has to be mildly or greatly insulting.

While the United States remains the richest, most productive and most innovative big economy, its grip on world hegemony, including its influence in Africa, is slipping for a number of reasons. One reason is the perceived high-handed attitude of the United States in dealing with African governments as expressed by the Government of Niger, which recently ended its military base deal with the U.S.

Niger military spokesman Colonel Major Amadou Abdramane was quoted by CNN as saying that the US delegation that recently visited to discuss the continuation of the base operation there was received out of “courtesy” and “did not respect diplomatic practices” by not providing information regarding the date of its arrival, the composition of the delegation and the purpose of the visit.

During meetings, Nigerien and American officials discussed the military transition in Niger and military cooperation between the two countries.

“The government of Niger regrets the desire of the American delegation to deny the Nigerien people the right to choose their partners and the types of partnerships capable of helping them truly fight against terrorists,” Abdramane said.

Niger “forcefully denounces the condescending attitude” of the U.S., he added.

American missteps accelerate alienation

Unfortunately, this appearance of condescension is not an excuse used to end the base agreement. There has long been tension in Africa over the lack of reciprocity in terms of high-level meetings. African leaders often settle for substantive talks with the State Department as opposed to face-to-face presidential meetings. U.S. presidents often fail to attend high-level meetings in Africa in person except on their own schedule.

As for the accusation of trying to force African governments to avoid partnering with governments the U.S. would prefer that they avoid, when I worked in the executive branch several years ago, those of us in the Africa bureau initially were presented with a program called “Clear Choice.” Initially, it was intended to push African allies to choose to do business with either the U.S. or China. Fortunately, those of us with Africa experience, especially USAID Administrator Mark Green, were able to show how counterproductive such a stance would be, and it was toned down in favor of trying to demonstrate the preferability of U.S. offerings to those from China.

The thing is, the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and other competitors for influence in Africa appear to treat African leaders with the respect they feel they deserve. Clinton, Bush and Obama visited Africa and met with African leaders face-to-face while neither Trump nor Biden have. There have been White House visits with African presidents with all five recent U.S. presidents, but again, discussions on policy are most often held with the U.S. State Department officials, and that has to be mildly or greatly insulting.

The U.S. government also too often has a way of making decisions that fit its global objectives without fully considering the collateral damage to developing countries. For example, the sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine caused serious grain shortages in Africa since Russia is a major grain and fertilizer suppliers to the continent, and there was no prior consideration of how to mitigate the damage sanctions would cause.

In recent years, U.S.-Africa trade and business in general has been disrupted by a persistent shortage of U.S. dollars, which Bloomberg.com reported on November 19, 2023 as leaving African governments scrambling for dollars and creating a new dividing line for investors.

“Dollar holdings are part of the value proposition,” said Benedict Craven, country risk manager at the Economist Intelligence Unit in the Bloomberg article. “Will investors be able to trade using foreign exchange from official sources? Will they be able to expatriate their dividends abroad? These questions are separating where investment is going.”

Over the past two years, the United States has suspended seven countries from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), mostly for human rights violations. However, rather than use the more precise punishments offered for violators of international law by the Global Magnitsky Act, the Biden administration has used the suspensions as blunt instruments that harm the innocent along with the guilty.

This is not a new situation. The Clinton administration never allowed Zimbabwe to participate in AGOA for human rights violations, but companies that bore no responsibility for such violations lost their ability to benefit from the trade process, some having to move to Zambia.

In the case of Uganda, the human rights violations involved a law banning LBGTQ activity. It was the second time in recent years that Uganda had approved what American officials felt was a draconian law, but it could have used Magnitsky to punish legislative and executive branch officials responsible rather than broadly punish the entire business sector of a country that has been a stalwart ally. That sends a bad message to other African allies and has enraged other governments on the continent, especially Ghana, for trying to force American social standards on Africans.

U.S. policy must begin treating African governments as equals in sovereignty if not in economic power. America’s rivals do, or at least pretend to, so the time is past for the United States to begin to work with African allies in a more mature, respectful manner.

For the most part, America’s poor decisions on Africa are the result of advice from biased advisors. From my experience in being considered for a position in the executive branch, there are high-level supporters who have a dim view of the viability of assistance for developing countries such as those in Africa.

I even had one of these people suggest to me that the U.S. Agency for International Development should be taken apart and reconstructed before I worked there. Fortunately, a group of experienced activists led the agency in general and the Africa bureau in particular, and we were able to continue to humanitarian and other work for which it is well known.

In other instances, Ethiopia for example, advisors who had personal relations with actors on the ground predating their government service offered advice that fit their existing biases despite the situation the international community faced in trying to end the Tigray War. In other cases, a lack of experience in Africa led to advice that just didn’t fit with the circumstances as they actually existed.

Policies have been suggested that clearly would be counterproductive. None of the five most recent American presidents have been known for their connections to Africa, so they have depended on advisors to give them solid, effective advice. In all cases, there have been experienced, unbiased Africanists on staff. Nevertheless, they were not always the voices that dominated policy discussions.

In 2024, as has happened for many years prior to that, questionable economic management, e.g., increased government spending that has driven up inflation and annual threats of government shutdowns, undoubtedly shake the confidence in the dollar and in the government that prints it.

Despite its misguided decisions regarding Africa, the U.S. government has demonstrated a persistent interest in aiding Africa and its people and has sent billions of dollars to meet emergency and ongoing needs caused by government neglect on the continent, particularly in meeting health and hunger requirements.

However, U.S. policy must begin treating African governments as equals in sovereignty if not in economic power. America’s rivals do, or at least pretend to, so the time is past for the United States to begin to work with African allies in a more mature, respectful manner – not as hopeless dependents but as friends who sometimes need a helping hand.

Gregory Simpkins, a longtime specialist in African policy development, is the Principal of 21st Century Solutions. He consults with organizations on African policy issues generally, especially in relating to the U.S. Government. He further acts as a consultant to the African Merchants Association, where he advises the Association in its efforts to stimulate an increase in trade between several hundred African Diaspora small and medium enterprises and their African partners.