Trump or Harris? Implications of the US elections for Africa

When you look at the overall US policy towards Africa, you realize that it has been maintained for decades with variations from one administration to the next. Those expecting changes in U.S.-Africa relations with the election of Trump or Harris would do well to temper their optimism with a dash of that reality.

The US elections are important to the world due to the US’s status as a superpower. The US gross domestic product (GDP) is over $28,000, while the GDP of its main competitor, China, is around $18,000. This trading and economic prowess is combined with military and technological advancements that provide political power like no other in the world. US Presidents have not shied away from projecting this all-encompassing power around the world.

But US presidents are prioritizing their Western allies, traditional rivals and emerging powers over Africa, which ranks low on Washington’s agenda. The starting point for analyzing a Trump or Harris post-election administration must be the global implications of each. The most significant lens for the impact of US elections is the geopolitical perspective.

As part of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) program, Trump will begin his second presidency by withdrawing the United States from the UN system, as he did in 2017. The US will leave the world stage. Harris, on the other hand, will continue US engagement in multilateralism.

Throughout the tumultuous campaign period, neither Harris nor Trump made any significant statements about their vision for US-Africa relations. This confirms the fact that Africa is at the lowest level of US global priorities. Instead, both Trump and Harris took positions on US relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the main entity of the Western world.

An analysis of Trump’s position on NATO and Europe more broadly suggests he will scale back relations, as he did during his presidency from 2017 to 2020. If Trump reduces support for Western allies by cutting funding for NATO operations, what might be expected of his engagement with Africa? It is palpable that Washington’s interest in Africa, not to mention interaction, will decline and retreat from Washington’s global priorities.

Interestingly, when Kenyan President William Ruto was honored with a state visit to the US in May, Kenya was introduced as a “major non-NATO ally.” Under a Harris administration, Kenya’s position could be shaped, perhaps in the form of donations of military equipment and increased training of its security forces. Under the Trump administration, Kenya’s NATO status will end before it even takes shape.

Both Trump and Harris have articulated their plans to engage with Russia and China. Trump has made it clear that he will lean on Ukraine to achieve peace with Russia in the ongoing war between the two Eastern European countries. Evidence of this has come from allegations that actors working on behalf of Russia are increasing support for Trump in digital media while simultaneously increasing propaganda against Harris. Moreover, Trump is generally considered to be optimistic about Vladimir Putin, while Harris and the Democratic Party generally view Putin as the United States’ main enemy.

The implications for Africa are that food and commodity prices will fall if Trump successfully persuades Ukraine to cede territory to Russia and abandon its campaign to join NATO – the very disputes that are fueling the war. If Harris wins, she will likely continue Joe Biden’s military and political support for Ukraine, which in turn will worsen the economic problems that have spread to Africa. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Russian-Ukrainian war could escalate into a Third World war involving Africa.

Quite interestingly, it is unlikely that a Trump or Harris presidency will change tactics as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian war and broader tensions between Israel and Iran. Both Trump and Harris have taken strong positions in support of Israel. Most African countries, led by South Africa, have taken a pro-Palestine stance. In its various statements on the matter, the African Union condemned Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the West Bank. As a result, Trump or Harris will face the problem of Africa, which does not support military support for Israel.

Both Trump and Harris have made China a key campaign issue. However, on issues of scale, Trump was stronger than Harris, articulating his intention to take a tough trade policy towards China. While Trump is likely to punish African countries that deal with China—either directly or indirectly—Harris is likely to look for more compelling ways to lure African countries away from China. Under the Trump administration, a trade war with China is all but inevitable, especially in agriculture, manufacturing and digital technology.

This will have at least two consequences for Africa. First, the Chinese will look to Africa and other parts of the world to compensate for the loss of American markets. Second, if the US imposes sanctions on Chinese companies, Trump will demand that African countries equally refrain from trading with them. Third, African countries are likely to challenge the US and continue to trade with Chinese companies.

This will lead to friction between the US and African countries. Recall that Trump started a trade war with China in these sectors in 2019, African leaders Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa), Paul Kagame (Rwanda) and Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya) openly rejected Washington’s call for them not to enter into a trade war with China in these sectors in 2019. negotiate with China.

Even though Africa ranks at the lowest level of US foreign policy, it rises up the agenda from one administration to the next from time to time. Analysts agree that the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were an era in the 1990s and 2000s when Africa grew somewhat as a result of Washington’s engagement with the continent. Clinton passed the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allowed preferential export and import of African goods and products into the US market. Bush initiated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Both had bipartisan support in the US Congress and were maintained by the Trump and Biden administrations.

In contrast, Trump not only neglected relations with Africa during his first term, but even went so far as to denigrate the continent using foul language. Given this context, it is unclear whether Trump would support extending the AGOA agreement, which expires in the last quarter of 2025.

Since taking office in 2021, Joe Biden’s administration has sought to repair relations. A key event was the adoption of the “US Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa” by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in August 2022. It was the first US policy toward Africa in a decade since President Obama’s policy unveiled in 2012. The US Policy 2022 was followed by the “Africa-US Leaders Summit”, during which Biden hosted about 49 African leaders and African leadership. Union.

It is likely that Harris, who has been willing to discuss and negotiate with several African leaders, will continue to implement the policy programs she helped develop. Among the initiatives Harris will inherit from Biden is the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement (PAC-ADE), an agency within the State Department.

This organization, created by presidential decree in 2023, served as a diplomatic channel for interaction in the cultural, political and economic spheres. It is unlikely that Trump will rescind the order to avoid angering African Americans and more recent African immigrants. But the organization is likely to fade under a Trump presidency.

Trump and Harris have very different views on social issues, key among them being the LGBTQ issue. The United States considers LGBTQ rights to be human rights that should never be violated. On the other hand, most African countries are conservative and do not allow same-sex relationships or only tolerate them. The Biden administration has actively opposed this anti-LGBTQ legislation and abuses in countries like Uganda and Ghana.

While the Trump administration has not been very vocal about LGBT issues, between 2017 and 2020 it supported his conservative evangelical Christian base, which is also anti-LGBTQ. If Harris wins, we can expect the LGBTQ agenda to remain on the U.S. agenda for Africa. If Trump wins, the LGBTQ agenda will likely collapse.

Trump’s approach to leadership is transactional. Among the positive aspects of his Africa policy was the launch of Prosper Africa, a one-stop organization coordinating trade deals between US economic agencies and their African counterparts. African countries wishing to do business with Africa will have to focus on deals under the Africa Prosper Agenda, especially in the energy sector.

It remains to be seen, but it is likely that Trump will favor bilateral trade agreements over broad initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area. For example, in 2020, the US entered into free trade negotiations with Kenya at a time when the AfCFTA was being actively promoted.

Dr Wekesa is Director of the African Studies Center at the University of the Witwatersrand.