Trump’s Africa Strategy and the Evolving U.S.-Africa Relationship

Trump never mentioned Africa during his February 5, 2019 State of the Union address, and rarely has Africa featured in the president's major foreign policy priorities. Instead, Mr. Trump has tended to frame foreign policy objectives as extensions of domestic policy, indicative of his "America First" approach to international affairs. Foreign policy experts must, therefore, analyze his words through this lens, as domestic issues in the Trump Administration can carry real weight abroad and hold key insights into the president's primary concerns and objectives. The president's foreign policy priorities for Africa, as outlined by National Security Advisor John Bolton on December 13, 2018, and Trump's State of the Union speech two months later, shed light on the administration's chief concerns for the future of U.S.-Africa relations and contain major implications for American engagement on the continent. During his State of the Union address, Mr. Trump recognized the expansion of the United States' domestic energy production as key to America's strategic outlook. Having surpassed Russia in October 2018 as the world's largest crude oil producer, the United States possesses, for the first time in 65 years, a valuable asset in the international arena: energy exports. As the lifeblood of the world economy, oil presents the U.S. with greater freedom of action in foreign affairs, as it no longer depends on other states for energy resources. U.S. allies in oil-rich Middle East kingdoms have already begun modifying their foreign policies, aware that the power of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to control global production is dwindling amid a more diverse group of producers unfettered by the group's production quotas.

OPEC's members in Sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Angola, may soon follow suit. If American production capacity continues to grow and American oil continues to flood the market, oil prices will remain suppressed. A global oil glut fueled by American exports might mean African countries find themselves competing with American exports in a market whose demand for oil seems to be slowing. Indeed, the United States in 2017 produced 16 percent of the world's crude oil. Although the vast majority of this oil was consumed in the U.S., the country's share of the global oil market is only set to expand as producers in Texas increase capacity and outfit southern ports for crude and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports.  A boom in American production and consequent drop in global prices could spark concerns for African countries that rely on oil exports for a sizeable portion of government revenue, like Angola and Nigeria. The Trump Administration has already shown a propensity to pull economic levers that would give the United States the upper hand in international affairs, most clearly evidenced by its re-imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018 and President Trump's unrelenting pressure on OPEC to maintain low oil prices.  While Sub-Saharan OPEC members may not be primary actors in the United States' ongoing disputes with Iran, they remain active members of the global oil cartel and will surely feel the effects of a tepid oil market or production glut. Moreover, as key actors in Africa attempt to shift away from a dependence on natural resources like oil, weaker revenue streams could make the transition to a less fossil fuel-reliant economy even more difficult.

In the security sphere, Mr. Trump marked a clear break from predecessors by abandoning, at least rhetorically, the expansive counterterrorism doctrine at the heart of U.S. national security policy since 9/11. He criticized U.S. involvement in Syria and Afghanistan as "endless wars" that offered America few strategic gains. Instead, he said, the U.S. would avoid costly entanglement abroad. American retrenchment abroad would presumably suggest a reduction in American engagement in counterterrorism efforts in Africa and widespread cuts to the defense budget. The opposite has occurred, however, as the Trump Administration has submitted a request for a massive $750 billion budget for the Pentagon in FY 2020. With this infusion of cash, the Department of Defense (DOD) may step up counterterrorism activities in so-called peripheral theaters, including in Africa. In his speech outlining the administration's Africa Strategy, John Bolton signaled that the administration was considering a more unilateral approach to African security issues, decrying "unproductive, unsuccessful, and unaccountable" U.N. peacekeeping missions on the continent in favor of more direct U.S. involvement.

On the tactical level, the Trump Administration has made it easier for the Pentagon to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorist targets around the world, redefining the Obama-era Presidential Policy Guidance which stipulated that lethal force would only be used if officials had "near certainty" that civilians would not die as a result of operations.  Under the Trump Administration's Principles, Standards, and Procedures (PSP), DOD must have "reasonable certainty" that drone strikes would not threaten non-combatants. This seemingly minor and semantic revision could have major repercussions for counterterrorism operations in Africa, and for the citizens of countries like Somalia, where the U.S. has stepped up its drone strikes. Indeed, it is widely reported that the Pentagon conducts military operations against Islamist militants in around 20 African countries, and certain theaters like Somalia fall under the guidance of the PSP.

The Trump Administration has also allowed the Central Intelligence Agency to redevelop its own covert drone program, peeling back Obama-era restrictions on the spy agency that transferred responsibility for kinetic actions against terror targets to the Department of Defense. Under Mr. Trump, the Agency has already established drone bases in Niger that will assist in its fight against terrorist groups in the Maghreb and Sahel. While held to a higher standard to protect civilian life than the Department of Defense — the same "near certainty" standard to which the DOD was held under Obama-era guidelines — the CIA's activities remain more opaque and are subject to less scrutiny from lawmakers and the public than those of the military. In the end, the use of drones might be too enticing a solution for Mr. Trump. If the president insists on cost-effective military engagements abroad, unmanned aircraft are as expedient as they are controversial. Rather than station hundreds, and potentially thousands, of troops to far-flung corners of the globe, Trump may rely on drones to minimize the loss of life here at home. This approach may not solve the underlying causes of instability, however, and may instead call into question the United States' commitment to bringing about lasting peace in war-torn areas.

Perhaps most consequential for long-term U.S. policy toward Africa was the bipartisan response to many of Mr. Trump's comments during the State of the Union regarding China. When the president accused the Chinese government of unfair trade practices, of "targeting our industries," and "stealing our intellectual property," both sides of the aisle joined in applause — a rare occurrence during the 88-minute speech. Bipartisan support for a "tough on China" approach could result in increased enthusiasm to spend more of the $60 billion allocated through the 2018 Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development (BUILD) Act on the continent. In recent years, China has increased its engagement in Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and garnered influence with many African states. Mr. Bolton directly accused the Chinese of seeking "global dominance" — a sentiment not alien to either side of the aisle, even in a fiercely divided Washington, D.C. Indeed, many analysts point to the BUILD Act as the first bipartisan riposte from the U.S. to combat Chinese investing clout.  The increasingly confrontational outlook from Washington on display during the State of the Union and Mr. Bolton's speech is worth following, as it could reflect a significant change in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Africa that transcends political divides. It also opens a new chapter in U.S. foreign aid, adding an explicit strategic contingency to each dollar spent abroad. For decades, American administrations of both parties have utilized foreign investments and aid programs to further their geopolitical goals under the guise of expanding democracy and free markets, or fostering good governance. It seems that the Trump Administration has dispensed with this veneer and declared its intention to oppose China on the continent through an increased security presence and calculated investment strategy.

Each administration adheres to a unique foreign policy doctrine, and President Trump's State of the Union address outlined his administration's fundamental approach to tackling issues abroad. Many of the themes expounded in Mr. Trump's address echoed the administration's Africa Strategy, outlined by John Bolton two months earlier. Most notably absent from President Trump's national address were the advancement of democracy and the fight against climate change, efforts which African governments in the past looked to the United States to help champion. Instead, the current administration seems to have focused on security issues and promoting American business interests on the continent, positing the United States and its firms as viable alternatives to what the administration sees as predatory strategic loans and asymmetric military arrangements from great power competitors. There remains much to be fleshed out regarding the Trump Administration's approach to Africa, but the United States, at least for the immediate future, seems disinclined to play the same role, militarily, diplomatically, economically, or otherwise, as it did in the past. Such may be the most important theme to take away from President Trump's Africa Strategy.

Cameron Fels is an Africa Program intern for the spring 2019 term. He is a recent graduate from the University of California, Los Angeles, receiving a bachelor's degree in Political Science.