
Trump's Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity
The most immediate red flag was the selective nature of the invitation. These five leaders were chosen not because they represent the African continent or a regional consensus, but precisely because they don't. They were selected for their compliance, not their vision. Revolutionary governments such as those in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or Guinea were deliberately excluded. The African Union was sidelined. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was ignored. This wasn't diplomacy, it was a strategic maneuver to fracture African solidarity and reward obedience, while isolating defiant sovereigntist forces in the Sahel.
Trump used the occasion to showcase his shift in policy from foreign aid to direct trade and private investment. This coincides with the dismantling of USAID and broader gutting of US foreign assistance programs. While Trump presents this as cutting waste and promoting self-reliance, the numbers tell a different story. Liberia alone stands to lose aid worth more than 2.5% of its gross national income. A recent Lancet study forecasts up to 14 million deaths globally by 2030 as a consequence of cascading aid cuts in health, nutrition, and infrastructure. The narrative of aid fatigue obscures a more violent reality: The imposition of austerity and the prioritization of corporate capital over human lives.
The logic behind this pivot isn't benevolence; it's extraction. Trump openly praised Africa's 'very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits,' and announced US support for Gabon's Banio potash mine through the US Development Finance Corporation. This is not development. This is raw material dependency dressed in the language of opportunity. These so-called partnerships do not include technology transfers, sovereign control of value chains, or long-term industrial strategies. African nations remain trapped in structures where they export what they do not consume and import what they do not produce. It is the same colonial dynamic of wealth outflow, but with new branding.
Meanwhile, the travel bans that may affect the very countries represented at the summit underscore the contradiction at the heart of US foreign policy. Even as Africa is courted for its resources, it is shut out from Western borders, stigmatized as a security risk, and surveilled as a threat. The embrace of African leaders is tactical, not principled. It is not solidarity, but subjugation.
The language of democracy and governance, repeatedly invoked at the summit, was deployed as a smokescreen. No one questioned the democratic legitimacy of US-backed regimes, nor did anyone raise the violence of sanctions, the repression of dissent, or the consequences of economic strangulation. Democracy, here, is not a goal but a weapon, used to discipline, coerce, and justify intervention. The summit was silent on colonialism, on reparations, on stolen wealth, on looted artifacts, and on the structural violence that underdeveloped Africa for centuries.
We must see this summit not as a new beginning, but as a continuation of a permanent economic war against Africa. From structural adjustment programs to exploitative trade agreements, from the CFA franc to the World Trade Organization, Africa has been systematically disempowered. The use of debt, sanctions, and aid conditionalities have turned economic tools into instruments of domination. The radical response should be to reject these colonial structures entirely.
We must also recognize that the US is not a development partner, it is a global military empire. With over 29 bases in Africa under AFRICOM, US drone operations in Niger, and covert CIA programs across the Sahel, Washington operates not as a friend of Africa but as a garrisoning force. These military installations are not for peace, but for control.
Trump's so-called economic shock therapy is nothing new. It is part of a larger strategy of controlled collapse: Destroy weak states, flood markets with foreign goods, privatize essential services, and turn public wealth into private profit. To replace aid with investment is not inherently bad, but when that investment comes from the same forces that destroyed public systems in the first place, it becomes a cruel joke. Africa should fund its own development through progressive taxation, state-owned enterprises, repatriation of looted wealth, and the creation of sovereign wealth funds built on nationalized resources.
The people of Africa should look beyond them and build grassroots power: Pan-African assemblies, community councils, people's defense networks, and economic forums that reflect the will of the masses, not the preferences of Washington.
And let us stop pretending that development can happen without justice. Africa is owed reparations, for slavery, for colonial plunder, for structural adjustment, for environmental destruction. Africa loses $777 billion annually in illicit financial flows. It pays more in debt servicing than it receives in aid. These are not accidents; they are systemic theft. We must demand reverse conditionality: No cooperation without restitution. No deals without asset return. No handshakes without apology.
Culturally, too, Africa is under siege. The US and its allies export not just goods but ideologies, individualism, consumerism, depoliticized entrepreneurship, and liberal technocracy. These are not neutral. They are tools of erasure, designed to uproot revolutionary consciousness. We must fight back with radical education, liberation art, and African-centered philosophy. We need a renaissance of resistance rooted in history, language, memory, and vision.
The ultimate goal is not a better version of the current system. It is a different system altogether. A people's economy built on public ownership, cooperative agriculture, food sovereignty, and democratic control of resources. A trade system not based on extractive exports but on intra-African barter, solidarity, and reciprocity. A union of African nations that looks south, to Latin America, to Asia, to other colonized peoples, for alliance, not northward for approval.
We must consider organizing a continental debt strike, led by the African Union and rooted in the legitimacy of popular resistance. Africa must collectively refuse to pay illegitimate debts, and redirect those funds toward healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and education.
The White House summit also sought to isolate Africa from its revolutionary allies. There was no mention of Venezuela, of Cuba, of Palestine, of Iran, of the BRICS alliance. These are not coincidental omissions. They are calculated. The US fears a multipolar world where Africa chooses its own friends. That is why we must build an Afro-Global South Alliance: A collective of liberation movements, radical governments, and grassroots struggles across continents committed to self-determination, anti-imperialism, and global justice.
And finally, we must reclaim revolutionary memory. The names of Nkrumah, Sankara, Gaddafi, Cabral, and Nyerere are not museum pieces. They are maps. They are weapons. They are the blueprints for what must come next. The young generation must know what was done, what was dreamed, and what remains unfinished. Let us build a Pan-African Memorial Archive to preserve their legacies and to teach the next generation not how to negotiate with empires, but how to defy them.
What happened on July 9 in Washington was not a new beginning. It was a recycling of the old. An imperial pageant masquerading as diplomacy. But Africa does not belong to summits. It belongs to its people. And the people are rising. From Ouagadougou to Bamako, from Khartoum to Kinshasa, the cry is the same: We are not your quarry. We are not your market. We are not your experiment. We are a continent in rebellion. And history, as always, is being written not by those who dine with empires, but by those who dare to resist them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
Tulsi Gabbard releases ‘overwhelming evidence' of Obama coup plot against Trump
Former President Barack Obama's administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, according to newly declassified documents released on Friday by America's Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard unveiled more than 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal communications, which she described as 'overwhelming evidence' of a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to politicize intelligence and launch the multi-year Trump–Russia collusion investigation. She dubbed it 'a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people.' The scandal severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy. 🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… 'This intelligence was weaponized,' Gabbard said. 'It was used as a justification for endless smears, for sanctions from Congress, and for covert investigations.' She added: 'When key internal assessments found that Russia 'did not impact recent U.S. election results,' those findings were suppressed.' 'For months before the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community maintained that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,' Gabbard noted. 'But once President Trump won, everything changed.' One document — a draft President's Daily Brief dated December 8, 2016 — stated Russia 'did not impact recent U.S. election results' through cyberattacks. The report, prepared by the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and other agencies, found no evidence of voting interference. Yet Fox News reported on Friday that the document was pulled — 'based on new guidance,' according to internal emails. Hours later, a high-level Situation Room meeting took place, attended by officials including DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. According to declassified notes, attendees agreed to produce a new intelligence assessment at President Obama's request. That report, released on January 6, 2017, claimed Russia had intervened in the election to help Donald Trump — directly contradicting earlier assessments. Gabbard claims the revised assessment leaned on the discredited Steele Dossier — compiled by a former British spy — while sidelining dissenting views within the intelligence apparatus. 'This was not intelligence gathering,' Gabbard stated. 'It was narrative building.' Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on Confirmed as DNI earlier this year — after a contentious process — Gabbard says she has forwarded the documents to the Department of Justice. She has urged investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are reportedly facing criminal inquiries. 'No matter how powerful, every person involved must be brought to justice,' she stressed. 'Our nation's integrity depends on accountability.' 'The integrity of our democratic republic depends on full accountability,' Gabbard concluded. 'Nothing less will restore the public's trust — and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.'


Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Writers guild seeks probe after CBS axes Colbert show
The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has called for an investigation into the abrupt cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert by CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global, alleging the move was politically motivated. CBS confirmed earlier this week that it will end the long-running late-night program in May 2026, retiring the entire Late Show franchise after over three decades. Executives cited declining ad revenue and changing viewer habits as reasons for the decision. 'Cancellations are part of the business,' the WGA's East and West Coast branches said in a joint statement Friday, 'but terminating a show in bad faith due to political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society.' The union urged New York state officials to launch a formal investigation. The WGA noted that the cancellation followed CBS's recent $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump, who had sued the network over alleged media bias. The case stemmed from a 60 Minutes segment that Trump claimed defamed him during its 2024 election coverage. Paramount did not admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to pay earlier this month. Colbert criticized the settlement on-air as a 'big fat bribe,' referring to Paramount Global's ongoing effort to secure regulatory approval for a merger with Skydance Media — a deal that could face government scrutiny. The WGA called the payout a 'capitulation to President Trump,' arguing that Colbert's cancellation sacrifices free speech in the hopes of currying favor with regulators ahead of the merger. Other late-night hosts expressed outrage over the move. Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon said he was shocked, while Jimmy Kimmel Live! host Jimmy Kimmel voiced support for Colbert and sharply criticized CBS. Trump praised the show's cancellation in a Truth Social post, adding, 'I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!' While CBS has tried to maintain neutrality, Colbert has frequently mocked Trump with humor and satire, once calling the former president's actions authoritarian. Despite the controversy, The Late Show averaged 3.61 million viewers during the 2024–2025 season — a 16% rise from the previous year — making it the most-watched late-night program during the fall season.


Russia Today
20 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump issues new threat to BRICS
President Donald Trump has claimed that BRICS is 'fading out fast,' while warning that any attempts by the group to challenge the US dollar will be met with a harsh economic backlash. Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump denounced what he called BRICS' attempts to weaken the dollar. 'They wanted to try and take over the dollar, the dominance of the dollar... And I said, anybody that's in the BRICS consortium of nations, we're going to tariff you 10%.' Trump stressed that Washington will spare no effort to preserve the dollar's hegemony. 'The reserve currency is so important. You know, if we lost that, that would be like losing a World War.' Washington 'can never let anyone play games,' Trump said, adding that he has decided to 'hit them [BRICS] very, very hard.' 'If they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly,' he said. Trump also claimed his threat to impose 10% tariffs on imports from the BRICS had completely derailed the group's summit in Rio de Janeiro earlier this month. 'They had a meeting the following day and almost nobody showed up,' he said. However, the BRICS summit featured broad participation at the highest level. While China's President Xi Jinping was absent from the meeting, his country was represented by Chinese Premier Li Qiang. Russian President Vladimir Putin was also absent, but addressed the summit remotely. Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa and Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto, as well as leaders from Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE attended in person. In October, Russia's Finance Minister Anton Siluanov stated that the share of national currencies in trade among BRICS countries has reached 65%, with the share of the dollar and euro plunging below 30%. Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained that BRICS countries are exploring dollar alternatives 'to shield themselves from US arbitrariness.' However, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said that BRICS has never been meant as a rival to the US, although warning that 'the language of threats and manipulation… is not the way to speak to members of this group.'