Election 2024 and the Future of U.S.-Africa Policy

The transcript of this conversation has been edited for clarity. 

MG: Michelle Gavin, Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

EO: Ebenezer Obadare, Douglas Dillon Senior Fellow for Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

***

MG: Can you recall hearing anything at all about Africa, U.S.-Africa policy, or our priorities on the continent, from either major presidential campaign, at any time over the course of this race?

EO: The straightforward answer is no. As a matter of fact, I have heard more about abortion than Africa over the last three months. The only time, I think, that peripherally Africa comes into view, or has come into view in this campaign, is when references have been made to immigration. But, to be honest, it has been more about Latin America, for obvious reasons, than Africa. So, the answer is no. I think I can explain that, honestly—and I say that not because I think it’s OK not to talk about Africa—but such is the passion surrounding this particular election and such is the importance of many of the issues at stake: abortion, immigration, Gaza, American democracy itself, national security. Such is the intensity around it that one might actually excuse the two candidates for not putting Africa on the front burner.

What do you think? Have you heard different?

MG: I share your assessment that, no, no one is talking about Africa, even in the context of explicit foreign policy discussions. That isn’t terribly new, having watched other U.S. presidential campaign seasons. Occasionally there have been issues, the Darfur crisis for example, that sort of rose to the level of needing to be addressed by these campaigns.

But, I do think it is a huge problem, actually. So, on one hand, I agree with you, it is ridiculous to expect candidates trying to win the votes of the American people—who, yes, are concerned about their reproductive rights, their job prospects, immigration—it’s unreasonable to expect a deep dive into every region of the world. But, I do worry that in the context of national security concerns, there is an anachronistic idea that Africa is a peripheral part of the world that doesn’t affect the United States.

In very different ways, both major presidential candidates appeal to this idea of U.S. global leadership and that we’ll be respected in the world. It’s a huge “miss” to be ignoring the youngest region, one of the most dynamic regions—this huge swathe of the world where our policies are, in many cases, not fit for purpose anymore.

EO: I agree. Since we’re looking for explanations for what obviously is a problem, I also wonder the extent to which the neglect is a function of the moment itself, especially the criticism coming from a section of the political spectrum about having given too much attention to foreign affairs, having spent a considerable amount of money on all these international initiatives, whereas the focus should be on what’s happening in our own backyard. I wonder the extent to which that also explains the neglect that you and I agree is there.

MG: I think that makes all the sense in the world. I don’t fault any American for being concerned first about their family, their community. That makes sense to me. But, it is frustrating sometimes not to see that bridge being built from their concerns to the foreign policy world.

So, in this election in particular, we have two candidates who are known quantities. There’s been a Trump administration before, and presumably, another one would pursue a similar approach to relationships in Africa as the first time around. How would you characterize that? What would you say about how the first Trump administration engaged with Africa?

EO: To some extent, maybe also because of the overall character of the administration, what it did in Africa, I think, probably, went under the radar.

So, if you look at every major administration over the last fifty years, there has always been a signature policy. When you think of the Clinton administration, you think of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). When you think of the George W. Bush administration, you think of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). President Trump actually had an Africa policy that was broadly consistent with that—I think it was called Prosper Africa. I think the main idea was to ease the cost of doing business, to smooth the process of doing business, between U.S. and African business interests. To that extent, you could say that the Trump administration had a plan for Africa.

So, to respond to your earlier question, one might expect a continuation of that: a business-focused policy that privileges American interests, but at the same time privileges African interests. But, here is the other thing, and I’m hoping that maybe you too address this, which is that the general attitude towards Africa has shifted dramatically in the short four years that President Trump has not been in office.

We’ve had a major epidemic. Now, he was in power when the epidemic started and all of that, and we’ve gone through that, but we’ve since had the war in Ukraine and the consequences that came in the wake of that. It’s a different geostrategic environment, and one in which, arguably, the United States has lost considerable ground to some of the competition, especially China and Russia.

So, how will a second Trump presidency [respond]—I will later address that—I think is the question that we should be asking. I expect some form of continuity, as I said earlier, with respect to American business interests in Africa, but whether we like it or not, I think a next Trump administration or a Harris administration will have to come to terms with the fact that it is no longer the Africa that was there four years ago, that things have changed drastically.

MG: I think you’ve hit on a couple really important points there. First, we have the multi-layered nature of messages and policies that seemed to be coming out of the Trump administration, where you had at the top this very dismissive, disrespectful tone, while in the workings of government, you had the standing up of Prosper Africa, which was a bringing together of a lot of elements of the U.S. government that were intended to help ease and promote doing business on the continent.

But then, remember when John Bolton made this speech rolling out their Africa strategy, and it was very much framed in the context of major power competition. We’re going to get out there, compete with China, and push back against rising Chinese power, which is interesting to think about in light of what you just pointed out, which are these shifting geopolitical dynamics. There are so many different external actors who see Africa as a critical part of their grand strategy going forward, and, I think you’re right, even less confidence in the United States to take the interests of African populations necessarily into account.

The other thing that I would throw into the mix on President Trump is the unwillingness to recognize the science around climate change, which makes it awfully hard to talk to your partners about the hugely consequential and really damaging effects that climate change is having on the continent and some of those big structural questions around loss and damage and climate finance. It’s as if the United States just walks out of the room when that conversation happens, and I think it’s an important one on the continent.

So, what about Vice President Harris? Should we expect a continuation of the Biden administration’s approach, or how might it differ? It’s interesting to note that she did take a trip to the continent as Vice President, visiting Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia, whereas President Biden did not, to many people’s disappointment. But, what do you think? Is it basically all of one piece, or do you see anything from the Harris campaign that suggests we might be striking out in a slightly different direction?

EO: The answer is, I don’t know yet. I am saying that because of my answer to the first question, which is, we don’t know what either might do because neither candidate is talking a whole lot about Africa at the moment. We’re just making inferences and extrapolations based on the fact President Trump had one presidency and Vice President Harris is part of the Biden presidency.

I think, maybe, a couple of elements that we can throw into the mix when you think about a possible Harris presidency is the fact that she is a woman and the fact that she is black. I think those things, and I’m sure we’re going to talk about them further, factor into the way people appreciate her, think about her, and talk about her. The appraisal is overwhelmingly positive. And, she certainly did not hurt her chances by the visit that you refer to, that she took to Africa. But, that brings a lot of pressure. I’m trying to think back to the Obama presidency, where [Africans felt] “you are President Obama, you have Kenyan ancestry, you are our son, and the pressure is on you to deliver something.” What that thing is, Michelle, nobody ever says.

MG: No, they don’t. And, as you know, I worked for President Obama, and the flip-side of it is the worry that domestically, you’ll be perceived as “too engaged” in Africa because of your personal connection and not on behalf of the American people.

EO: Exactly. So, you’re supposed to deliver the goods. You’re an American president, first and last. At the same time, you’re supposed to have some symbolic appeal to this particular constituency, and not illegitimately, because they have a certain claim on you. So, I think that element is going to be very interesting in the way we think about Vice President Harris, especially if she becomes President Harris. I think the positive part of that is, she might respond to that pressure in a very positive way, to think more creatively about the opportunities for the United States to deepen its alliances in Africa. The United States has got things going with a few countries, and those alliances are what’s saving [them]. A few examples come to mind, Kenya being the most prominent of them.

But, also, enlarging that sphere and making sure that the United States tackles head-on the challenge by China, the challenge by Russia, while also not neglecting all the other conflicts that are going on in other parts of the continent that are affecting people in different ways.

MG: Right, it’s a really complex part of the world, and part of the challenge is figuring out where the United States has sufficient influence to make real progress—here’s what we’d like to see happen and then there’s what we have the influence to make progress on, and it’s not the same list.

I think that, yes, she might be very well positioned to think more creatively and to, perhaps, set a tone at the top that begins to chip away at the problems in the U.S. foreign policy establishment of considering Africa as peripheral and failing to apply the same rigorous thinking of what our interests are and how they align with our partners that we might apply in other parts of the world. We can certainly hope that that might be the case.

What about the flip side? This election, for Americans, is certainly not about foreign policy, and it’s certainly not about Africa policy. But, in Africa, our elections are followed, absolutely, and our discourse.

What do you think, Ebenezer, about how the U.S. election is being perceived in different parts of the continent right now?

EO: So, not unsurprisingly, there is a lot of interest. People may not be able to actually vote, but they are voting with their minds. I get calls from home, people asking me, “You are an American citizen now, who are you going to vote for?” I think that speaks to the level of interest on the continent.

But this is where I think things can get a little bit tricky. I’m going to talk from an immediate Nigerian standpoint, and I don’t know the extent to which this applies to the rest of the continent. On one hand, there’s interest in the “American project,” and what becomes of it. People see America as a beacon. Africans are interested in the United States because there are millions of Africans here doing very well and sending money home. If they do well, people at home who are reliant on them do well. There’s a lot of interest in America continuing to prosper and to flourish. 

But there’s this other concern, too, about what’s happening across religious communities in Africa. I did this piece on President Trump a few weeks ago, which I called, "A Second Coming?" I was looking at the idea of the fact that if there’s one constituency where support for President Trump has remained solid and unshakeable, it’s among African Pentecostals. The reason is very simple: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. President Trump is perceived as being a major supporter of the Christian cause in the United States and, by inference, the Christian evangelical cause in Africa. I remember when former President Buhari of Nigeria came to visit, and he was with President Trump, and President Trump asked something along the lines of, “Why aren’t you protecting my African brothers and sisters?” That played very well in Africa. I bring it up because that continues to affect the way people think about President Trump in a very positive way, that at the end of the day, no matter what happens, this is someone who might be relied on to fight the good Christian cause. That is affecting the way people perceive a possible second Trump coming versus a Harris presidency, the role of religion and the fact that President Trump is perceived as being a defender of the Christian cause in the United States and beyond.

MG: It’s really interesting, right? It raises all the questions we have domestically about the contradictions between President Trump’s personal conduct, his personal religiosity, and his commitment to some of these positions that please a lot of evangelicals so much, particularly around reproductive rights. But, it’s fascinating to think about this idea that there is a group of people he has identified as worthy of protection, worthy of using the voice, the power, of the U.S. presidency, to advocate for. I think that is a really interesting thing to think about in the context of some other parts of the continent where U.S. policy in Gaza right now, for example, is not at all popular, where there’s long been a sympathy for the Palestinian people, and a sense that their experience of occupation has historical parallels in Africa under colonial rule or minority rule.

It’s not so much the religious element, but this idea of who is worthy of standing up for? Who deserves protection, and who doesn’t? It’s an interesting idea to think about in terms of how the rest of the world perceives these candidates, and where the United States might be going.

I also think I see a continued tarnishing of the brand, as it were, of democracy, just because there’s already so many accusations of unfairness or that a certain outcome would clearly be unfair as former President Trump continues to recite his litany of grievances about the 2020 election. I do think this both diminishes U.S. stature but also is part of this toxic stew of the diminishment of the value of democratic governance itself. Does this really have any meaning, is it real, is it valuable at all, is it worth fighting for? That, I think, is a conversation that is really alive on the continent, and I see some connection there.

EO: I completely agree, and I’m glad that you brought this up because you couldn’t emphasize this more, how important it is. We in the United States don’t think enough about it, the extent to which our admittedly flawed and imperfect democracy still remains an exemplar to be held up and one that is looked upon as a reference point by people in different parts of the world.

So, as you were saying, I was thinking of the two sides of Trumpian, Christian, masculinity, and the way it plays out in Africa. The positive side is what I just spoke about, which is the idea of, in communities where there are fractures and tensions between Christians and Muslims, especially in a place like Nigeria where the Boko Haram insurgency has been a problem for decades now, an American president speaking for the Christian community is hugely welcome. One can, I think, understand and sympathize with that.

The dark side, the other side, of that masculinity, is where it verges into anti-democratic illiberalism. I’m glad you brought this up because there’s the whole specter of January 6 that continues to loom large—we can’t forget about it. Whether you are on the right or on the left in the United States, the sheer ugliness of that and what it means for our democracy, the idea that if somebody wins an election they are supposed to accept the result of the election, and the way that plays out in a continent where many democrats have embraced democracy reluctantly. Some leaders would rather be autocrats, and they are given the excuse of not accepting the result of an election. It’s extremely important and, if anything, it’s a reminder to both of us of how crucial and how important November’s election is, how closely watched it’s going to be from an African standpoint, and why it’s important for the United States to put its best foot forward.

MG: I couldn’t agree more. So, just to finish up, let’s indulge ourselves a little bit and imagine that a debate moderator would actually ask the candidates a question or two about Africa and U.S.-Africa relations.

What should those questions be, and what kind of answers would you like to hear?

EO: Maybe a combination of some of the things we’ve been discussing this afternoon.

One, there is a changed strategic environment in Africa. We’ve fallen behind, we’ve lost some ground to China and Russia, at least that’s the perception. What are you going to do about it? I think that would be an interesting question for the two candidates to answer.

We speak of Africa in terms of a profound demographic boom. It is the youngest continent. Population itself is not necessarily a virtue, but if we play our hands well, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of people that can become the next stalwarts for democracy and that become the spirit for economic prosperity in Africa. What is your vision for turning those idle hands into active agents of prosperity and democracy?

Last, but certainly not least, what do you do about climate change? How do you help the private sector, how do you help the public sector, how do you make sure that the conversation that has now started between people interested in climate change in the Global North and people interested in climate change in Africa does not stop?

On a more philosophical note, how do you make sure that you show solidarity without being guilty of intrusion? I’m going back to some of the complaints about Western superciliousness and American arrogance. How do you make sure that you offer help without pointing an accusing finger at people and telling them what to do?

Those three or four questions would be close to the top of the questions that I would ask. What about you?

MG: You hit almost everything on my list, and I want to underscore your excellent point about humility and about recognizing that, ultimately, the course that different African states take is up to the citizens of those states, not us.

If we’ve learned anything from our own turmoil in recent years, it should be that we don’t come from some imagined place of perfect virtue, or a perfect democracy, or a perfect rule of law.

I agree with your questions. I think I might even put a finer point on one, or about democracy. Why should these young populations, who want economic opportunity, who want jobs, who want services to be delivered to them, who if they’re going to pay taxes want to know that those taxes don’t wind up in somebody’s pocket, as opposed to being invested in services for the public good, have faith? It’s not that hard to understand why these surging crowds have come out in support of military seizures of power. The grievance base, as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) put it, is quite vast.

I would also add, since it’s clear that the candidates have had to articulate positions on Ukraine, on Gaza, I do think that the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, this horrifying war in Sudan, should be addressed. Even if the framing is, “is it just a terrible tragedy that doesn’t affect us,” it would be interesting to hear the candidates try to work through where our interests lie, why there are reasons to be concerned about a collapsed Sudan, and what’s happening to some international norms that are supposed to protect everybody around humanitarian access and other pieces. And so, I would love to see this crisis, that is so very deadly and disruptive, elevated to a topic that a U.S. president should have to respond to.

EO: I totally agree.

MG: Thanks so much for this chat, Ebenezer. It’s always fun to talk with you. Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised by the debate.