Understanding the first 160 days of Senate Foreign Relations Committee on African affairs and global health policy

Mail & Guardian

5 hours ago

Is there partisan agreement on the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members?
A rapid review suggests that there has been a significant shift in the strategic priorities on African affairs and global health policy that have been pursued in formal engagements by the majority members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC).
Over the first 160 days, the formal engagements of the majority members were not as strongly aligned with the strategic priorities of countering global health threats and strengthening democratic institutions as they were with the strategic priorities of ending regional conflicts, realigning US foreign policy, promoting human rights, countering the diplomatic engagement of malign actors and countering the predatory practices of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
That is a curious finding. It means that those formal engagements were not perfectly aligned with the strategic priorities for SFRC engagement on African affairs and global health policy that were declared by the relevant subcommittee chair during the first 160 days of either the last session or the current one.
In turn, that raises a number of follow-on questions of policy relevance. One is whether there is partisan agreement on the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members. Another is whether there is bipartisan agreement that the promotion of human rights should be a strategic priority among the majority and minority members. Media outlets and think tanks should seek to provide answers to those questions.
Strategic priorities
A rapid review shows that there were significant changes in the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy that were declared by the respective chair of the SFRC Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy within the first 160 days of the current session versus the last one.
Current session
At the start of this session, the current subcommittee chair articulated six strategic priorities for engagement. In the press release following his appointment, Senator Ted Cruz
A few weeks later, Cruz held
Last session
In the prior session, the former subcommittee chair articulated a very different set of strategic priorities for engagement. In the press release following his appointment, Senator Corey Booker
Committee engagement
A rapid review of the hearings, chair press releases and subcommittee chair press releases shows that there was a similar level of SFRC majority engagement on African affairs and global health policy over the first 160 days of the current session versus the last one.
Committee hearings
In the current session, the SFRC held two committee hearings that were specifically focused on African affairs and global health policy. The first took place on 13 May 2025. It was a
In the last session, the SFRC held two committee hearings on African affairs and global health policy over the same period. The first took place on 19 April 2023. It was a
Committee majority press
In the current session, the SFRC majority press featured six official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an official statement on the
In the last session, the SFRC majority press also featured six official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an official statement on
Subcommittee chair press
In the current session, the press for the subcommittee chair featured three official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an
In the last session, the press for the subcommittee chair featured five official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was on
Analytic synthesis
A synthesis of the research findings suggests that there has not been a perfect match between the formal engagements of majority members and the strategic priorities declared by the current subcommittee chair over the first 160 days of the current session. Generally speaking, those formal engagements have not been strongly aligned with at least two of the strategic priorities declared by Booker during the first 160 days of the last session (that is, countering global health threats; strengthening democratic institutions). They have been more aligned with:
One of the strategic priorities declared by Booker during the first 160 days of the last session (protecting human rights).
Two of the strategic priorities declared by Senator Cruz during the first 160 days of the current session (countering the diplomatic engagement of malign actors; countering the predatory practices of the CCP).
Two issues that were not declared to be strategic priorities by either Senators Booker or Cruz during the first 160 days of their respective sessions (realigning US foreign policy; ending regional conflicts).
That raises follow-on questions of policy relevance. One is whether the historic pursuit of nomination approvals significantly impacted the strategic priorities that were pursued on African affairs and global health policy during the first 160 days of the current session. Another is whether there was partisan collective agreement on the strategic objectives for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members during the first 160 days of the current session. Yet another is whether there was bipartisan agreement that the promotion of human rights should be a strategic priority for African affairs and global health policy among the majority and minority committee members during the first 160 days of the current session. If so, then that raises the question of why the current subcommittee chair did not declare the promotion of human rights to be a strategic priority in response to domestic political concerns. Of course, there are many others. For example, why did the current subcommittee chair not declare
Beyond the synthesis, the rapid review suggests that the current organisational structures of the SFRC subcommittees and State Department bureaus may not be optimised for the achievement of the current strategic priorities for African affairs. Like last session, there are hard jurisdictional boundaries drawn between North Africa affairs and sub-Saharan Africa affairs. Those probably impede the bridging of the artificial divide that exists between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa in African affairs. Moreover, there are blurred jurisdictional boundaries drawn between African affairs and global health policy. That may have made sense when countering global health threats was one of the strategic priorities for African affairs. However, it makes less sense now that countering global health threats has been downgraded as a strategic priority for African affairs.
Research limitations
The scope of the rapid review was exploratory in nature. As one would expect, it follows that there are several important limitations that merit consideration.
First, the rapid review only critically examined a subset of the formal engagements on African affairs and global health policy by the majority members. Missing formal engagements include draft legislation and staff delegations. Their inclusion could have a significant impact on the research findings. There was draft legislation on African affairs and staff delegations to African countries during the first 160 days of the current session.
Second, the rapid review did not critically examine informal engagements on African affairs and global health policy by the majority members. Missing informal engagements included social media posts. Their inclusion could have a significant impact on the research findings. There were majority leadership posts on African affairs on social media during the first 160 days of the current session. Moreover, social media was a major platform for engagement. As evidence, the SFRC Chairman's recent
Third, the rapid review only critically examined one period of time. That could have had a significant impact on the research findings. There were intervening events that took place over the first 160 days of the current session. One was a
There is therefore a clear and present opportunity to improve the general knowledge about the engagement of the SFRC on African affairs and global health policy by way of future research that is designed to address these research limitations.
Michael Walsh is a visiting scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Ambassador (Ret) Charles Ray is a member of the Board of Trustees and chair of the Africa Programme at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.