Unconventional Trump Brings Openings and Risks for Africa.
As Donald Trump prepares for his second term in the White House, predicting his actions remains difficult. However, one consistent trait stands out: his preference for transactional politics over patient, principled diplomacy. This approach may present both opportunities and dangers for Africa.
Under the Obama administration, significant efforts were made to support African peacekeeping missions through the African Union (AU). The goal was to establish a sustainable financial framework for these missions, creating a stronger peace and security structure on the continent. This was aligned with a multilateral approach that prioritized diplomatic engagement and adherence to international norms. However, these ambitions quickly faded with the onset of the Trump administration, which showed little interest in expanding peacekeeping efforts.
During Trump’s first term, several key peacekeeping missions were scaled back or closed, including operations in Darfur and Mali. The Biden administration continued this trend, signaling a shift away from multilateral peacekeeping efforts.
Trump’s approach to global diplomacy, which largely dismisses the notion of “liberal peace” a model where peace, democracy, and economic openness are closely intertwined has been criticized. In Africa, some leaders have welcomed Trump’s direct and results-oriented approach, as opposed to the Western liberal peace framework. Trump’s “doctrine” for Africa and the Middle East, built on strategic, transactional deals, has redefined relationships with key countries like Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel.
For instance, in the Nile River dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Trump played a significant role in mediation at the behest of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whom he famously called his “favorite dictator.” However, this direct negotiation strategy often overlooks long-term stability or democratic ideals. In one notable example, the U.S. suspended aid to Ethiopia during talks, with Trump even suggesting that Egypt might consider military action against the dam.
Trump’s term also witnessed a shift in U.S. policy towards Africa. His administration brokered peace agreements like the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. For Sudan, this meant the U.S. lifted sanctions in exchange for Sudan signing the Accords. While these deals were hailed as diplomatic successes, their long-term impact on regional stability remains uncertain, especially considering the deteriorating political and economic situation in Sudan after Trump left office.
The transition to a second Trump term is expected to continue his preference for bilateral deals with African leaders. These will likely involve arrangements focused on trade, aid, and security, bypassing multilateral structures like the AU. In countries like Sudan, which are grappling with war and famine, Trump’s transactional approach may fail to address underlying causes of conflict and instead prioritize short-term solutions that benefit certain political actors.
In Sudan, where an ongoing civil war has displaced millions, the conflict remains fueled by external powers. The UAE and Egypt, among other Middle Eastern states, have stakes in the outcome of Sudan’s civil war, and their involvement complicates prospects for peace. For Trump, Sudan might present an opportunity for a high-profile diplomatic win, but it’s unclear whether such interventions will lead to lasting stability or merely deepen the conflict.
A similar situation exists in Ethiopia, where tensions with neighboring Egypt have persisted over the Nile. Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is reliant on foreign support, especially from the UAE. A potential shift in the region’s political alliances, especially between Egypt and the UAE, could alter the dynamics of the Horn of Africa, but it remains uncertain whether such changes would bring peace or only increase the region’s instability.
During his first term, Trump showed little interest in maintaining the U.S. military presence in Africa. His abrupt withdrawal of American troops from Somalia, aimed at countering al-Shabaab, left a vacuum that was eventually filled by the Biden administration. It is likely that Trump’s second term would see similar indifference toward military operations in Africa unless a major event such as an attack on American personnel forced a re-engagement.
In West Africa, the rise of jihadist groups and increasing political instability, exemplified by a wave of military coups, poses another challenge. Trump’s potential policies toward these regions would likely be shaped by his geopolitical priorities, including relations with Russia. In particular, the growing influence of Russia’s Wagner Group in parts of Africa could be seen as a point of contention. Trump’s relationships with key partners, such as Morocco, which is wary of Russian influence in Algeria and the Sahel, could complicate the region’s already fragile political landscape.
For leaders like Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu, Trump’s transactional style may be familiar. Tinubu may be inclined to find ways to engage with the U.S. to combat jihadist groups like Boko Haram, though the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy makes it difficult to anticipate his long-term approach.
In February 2025, African leaders will convene in Addis Ababa for the African Union summit, where a new chairperson of the AU Commission will be elected. This new leader will face a daunting challenge: balancing multilateral diplomacy with the realities of shifting international power dynamics, particularly under Trump’s transactional approach. The AU’s tradition of promoting norms-based cooperation, which emphasizes peaceful conflict resolution and democratic governance, may find itself sidelined in favor of deals that prioritize short-term gains.
Ultimately, Trump’s return to the White House could present both opportunities and risks for Africa. While his approach might provide immediate solutions to certain conflicts, the long-term consequences of transactional diplomacy could undermine regional stability and democratic progress across the continent.
Source: Reuters.
